Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for consideration, as amended, read.

To be considered upon Thursday 24 November.

SHREWSBURY AND ATCHAM BOROUGH COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

TEES AND HARTLEPOOL PORT AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

DARTFORD TUNNEL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 24 November.

AUTUMN STATEMENT 1983

Ordered,
That there be laid before this House Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer's Autumn Statement 1983.—[Mr. Douglas Hogg.]

Oral Answers to Questions — Oral Answers to Questions

Mr. Speaker: Before we start questions today, I ask for shorter supplementary questions and answers.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Mr. Spence: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are the Government views on the Commission's proposals for the dairy sector.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Michael Jopling): The Commission has produced a number of proposals for the milk sector. 'These are still under discussion. The main one is for a supplementary levy to be charged on increases in milk production. I consider the best way to solve the problems in the milk sector is firm action on the level of milk price support.

Mr. Spence: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will he confirm that the proposal to use 1981 figures as the base for milk production in the United Kingdom will be disastrous in view of the expansion that has occurred in the industry since that time? Will he further confirm that the knock-on effect in supply industries to the agriculture industry, particularly the dairy and livestock sector, would be almost cataclysmic?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend has put his finger on one of the main difficulties. A supplementary levy based on
1981 figures would not suit us at all well. My hon. Friend might like to know that the Presidency recently suggested taking the average for 1981, 1982 and 1983 minus 2 per cent. That also would not be satisfactory to us. To be acceptable, a supplementary levy would have to be on a more satisfactory basis than either of those suggested.

Mr. Corbett: Now that the Minister has opened the door to UHT and sterilised milk imports, what progress is his Department making in trying to secure stringent dairy hygiene regulations throughout the Community?

Mr. Jopling: The Community is looking into this matter. With our high standards of hygiene, that should be welcomed.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Are not national quotas the only feasible way of preventing Germany and France from continuing to support small producers who do not depend on milk production income to keep themselves and their families? Will not price alone, therefore, be bound to fail?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend would do well to consider the implications of national quotas. In practice, it would mean operating a scheme on similar lines to the co-responsibility levy, which is so unpopular in this country and has been ineffective in dealing with the growing milk surpluses. I have severe reservations about the national quota idea.

Mr. John David Taylor: The Minister expresses his preference for a milk price support scheme. Does that mean that the Government are firmly opposed both to the super levy and to quotas for individual milk producers?

Mr. Jopling: We have consistently said that the best way to deal with surplus milk is to use the mechanism of price and the discipline of threshold guarantees. That view is supported by the Milk Marketing Board, and I am convinced that that is the best way to deal with the problem.

Mr. Maclennan: Does the Minister accept that if he proceeds by way of quantitative restrictions on price support, such as the supplementary levy on milk, he risks transferring the surplus problem to some other commodity, such as cereals? If so, is he proposing to proceed pan passu on cereals?

Mr. Jopling: The question is not about cereals, and I do not think I should be led down that path. If there were to be a reduction in milk production, which there must be throughout the Community, my guess is that the pressure would be on commodities other than cereals. In those circumstances, I think that the pressure would be on some of the livestock sectors.

Straw and Stubble Disposal

Mr. Andrew Bow Bowden: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress has been made towards finding alternative methods of disposal of straw and straw stubble.

Mr. Jopling: The Government are funding a major programme of research into straw use and disposal. We are spending nearly £2 million a year on this. Current projects include research into using straw for animal feed and fuel and mixing straw into the soil. It is, however, likely that for the foreseeable future burning will remain the only satisfactory method of disposal for much of the surplus straw that is now produced.

Mr. Skinner: Fiddling while Britain burns.

Mr. Bowden: Will my right hon. Friend inject even more urgency into the research? Is he aware that tens of thousands of homes were affected during the summer and that many horticulturists had their crops severely damaged?

Mr. Jopling: I am extremely conscious of the inconvenience that was caused, in most cases by a thoughtless and small minority of farmers. I should like to see the NFU's code of practice and the local authority model byelaws strengthened, and we are taking steps to that end.

Mr. Home Robertson: Will the Minister consider introducing a scheme for subsidising the transportation of straw to remote livestock-rearing areas where much of it could be put to gainful use?

Mr. Jopling: That is easier said than done. It would be a hugely expensive scheme, and almost impossible to monitor properly. As the hon. Gentleman will be aware from his professional experience, a great deal of straw travels from the grain-growing areas to the livestock areas anyway. The difficulty would be in avoiding subsidising an existing trade in an effort to get the extra movement of straw in the way he suggested. It would be a difficult scheme to organise.

Mr. Madel: As an interim measure, will the Government support a proposal made by a number of farmers in Bedfordshire that straw and stubble burning should not be allowed on Saturdays, Sundays and bank holidays, and that it should not be allowed before 5 o'clock in the afternoon?

Mr. Jopling: We shall want to discuss that helpful suggestion at the talks to which I referred.

Mr. Geraint Howells: How many EC countries have introduced legislation to stop farmers burning straw?

Mr. Jopling: There are different regulations affecting different countries. One of our major problems is that our conditions are different from many countries in the Community. In some eastern counties of Britain, where there is intensive growing of grain and a great surplus of straw, livestock are not spread in the way that they are in other countries. There lies the difficulty.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that the model byelaws covering straw and stubble burning properly relate to farmers who break the NFU code of practice?

Mr. Jopling: My hon. Friend makes a good point. They are not adequate. That is why we are having talks to see whether we can stiffen them up. At the same time, we are having discussions with the Home Office about the local authority model byelaws, which also need to be reviewed carefully.

Mr. Tom Cox: Is the Minister aware that last summer many farmers disregarded any supposed code of conduct covering straw and stubble burning and that tragically, as a result, people were killed in motorway accidents? Is he further aware that his replies about possible alternatives to burning are unsatisfactory and that the problem requires urgent attention?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman directs his vehemence to much too wide a group of people. As I said,

I do not believe that many farmers have been abusing the code. We are dealing with a small minority, and we should try to make it much less attractive for them to burn straw in an irresponsible way.

Mr. Gale: Until such time as a total ban is practicable, will my right hon. Friend consider the advice given by his Department to the Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments in April about the burning of grass and heather? Does he agree that the only practical and fair way of monitoring these matters is to have a flexible licensing system? Will he consider applying such a system to straw and stubble burning?

Mr. Jopling: The next question on the Order Paper deals with grass and moorland burning. A licensing system would be extremely costly and of doubtful effectiveness in reducing the problems caused by straw burning. However, it is a point at which we shall be looking.

Mr. Mark Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the feeling in the House and the country that he has not responded to the depth of anger over the level of straw burning that was carried out last summer? Is he further aware that he has expressed a degree of complacency which I regret deeply and hope he regrets also?

Mr. Jopling: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman spent his summer recess. We announced early on that, in view of the irritation and inconvenience that had been caused, which I greatly regret, by irresponsible behaviour, we would look again with the NFU at the code of practice and start discussions with the Home Office with a view to reviewing the local authority model byelaws. We are doing that. I reject the hon. Gentleman's allegations.

Straw and Moorland Burning

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether his Department's work on straw and moorland burning has given any indication of the numbers of wild animals killed by these practices.

Mr. Jopling: Provided that straw and moorland burnings are properly carried out, they should not pose significant threats to wildlife populations.

Mr. Bennett: Is the Minister aware that the problem this year has been that a great deal of the burning has not been done properly and that farmers have put people on the roads at risk through accidents? Is he further aware that many wild animals have been trapped and encircled by flames as a result of irresponsible burning? When will he produce enforceable laws to stop this obnoxious practice?

Mr. Jopling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the implication that I read in his supplementary—he seemed to underline what I said—that provided straw and moorland burning is carried out properly, it should not pose a significant threat to wildlife populations. I accept that, if it is carried out improperly, in some instances there can be a threat to wildlife. It is partly with that in view that we are carrying out the reviews and discussions to which I referred.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that burning for hill and upland grazing is an essential part of hill sheep management and that if the regulations laid


down under the Wildlife and Countryside Act were carried out there would be no problems? Indeed, none has been reported to me?

Mr. Jopling: I acknowledge my hon Friend's wide experience. As a member of the Nature Conservancy Council, he knows much about this matter. I agree with and underline what he said. If burning is carried out properly, it should not represent any threat to wildlife, which we are anxious to preserve.

Dairy Products

Mr. Gould: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is satisfied with the current level of imports of dairy produce from beyond the European Community.

The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John MacGregor): The Community's imports of regulated agricultural products reflect the trading arrangements negotiated between the Community and third countries. I do not think it realistic to press for more liberal access to the Community market for dairy products. given the present levels of production in the Community.

Mr. Gould: How can the Minister justify to the British consumer the progressive exclusion from the British market by the EC of low-priced New Zealand butter?

Mr. MacGregor: We have made it clear in the Agriculture Council that we consider the quantities proposed by the Commission for the next five years to be neither fair nor reasonable. The Community has a commitment not to deprive New Zealand of essential outlets, and we are pressing for that commitment to be honoured.

Oils and Fats (Taxation)

Mr. Baldry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is Her Majesty's Government's policy towards the proposal made on 21 September 1983 by the European Commission to apply a tax on oils and fats.

Mr. MacGregor: We regard the proposal as contrary to the Community's domestic and international interests, and we are strongly opposed to it.

Mr. Baldry: I am glad to hear that. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be outrageous for the European Commission to impose a tax on fats and oils to help fund the common agricultural policy at a time when the EC is supposed to be searching for economies in the CAP and reductions in surpluses generally? Does he further agree that the imposition of such a tax could only damage the consumer and the British food industry?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with all that my hon. Friend says. It is estimated that the proposals will increase butter consumption in the Community as a whole by only 16,000 tonnes. That is a tiny amount compared with both butter consumption and butter surpluses. Therefore, it does not really deal with that problem. I agree that it has the effects that my hon. Friend mentioned on consumers and some sections of the food industry. Moverover, it will exacerbate our relations with third countries and cause 

them to retaliate. As my hon. Friend said, it is the wrong way to tackle the problem of increasing surpluses and expenditure.

Mr. Loyden: Is the Minister aware of the adverse effects that this will have on the food industry in Merseyside? Is what he said at the Dispatch Box today the line that will be taken by his right hon. Friends at Athens later this year?

Mr. MacGregor: I think that the effect on Merseyside will be small—it would be wrong to exaggerate it—and the proposal in its current form would have a small effect on the food industry. We do not want to impose on the industry anything that would have an adverse effect. The danger is that a tax, if it were introduced, could be increased in future years. I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is the line that we have taken in the discussions, and we are supported by other member states.

Sir Peter Mills: Does my hon. Friend agree that that would be a retrograde step and that the butter industry can stand on its own feet? Will he proclaim the virtues of butter against some margarines which are made from dubious animal fats?

Mr. MacGregor: I agree with my hon. Friend about the impact on the butter industry. As I said, I think that this is the wrong way to tackle the problems that we undoubtedly face with dairy surpluses.

Forest Land Sales

Mr. Canavan: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what area and value of forest land has been sold or is in the process of being sold under the terms of the Forestry Act 1981.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mrs. Peggy Fenner): Between the passing of the Forestry Act in 1981 and 21 October 1983, the Forestry Commission received £28·5 million from the sale of land and other real assets. The area involved included 16,182 hectares of forestry land and plantations.
As at 21 October, a further 56,302 hectares of forestry land and plantations, with an estimated value of £36·5 million, were also in the process of being sold. That is, they were either on the market or had been approved for sale, and reserve prices had been fixed. Other real assets committed for sale at 21 October are expected to realise a further £3·5 million.

Mr. Canavan: Why are certain purchase prices still a big state secret—for example, the Glen Affric estate in Scotland, which was sold by the Wotherspoon family to the Forestry Commission about 20 years ago and which the Forestry Commission is now in the process of selling back to the Wotherspoon family? Are not the public entitled to know the original purchase price, the present purchase price, how much investment the Forestry Commission, has put into the estate, and what profit the Wotherspoon family is making out of this senseless public asset stripping which was initiated by the Tory Government?

Mrs. Fenner: The hon. Gentleman is given to exaggeration. The disclosure of such information would amount to a breach of confidentiality.

Mr. Kennedy: May I point out to the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) that the puchase price was


announced last week? When will the Government recognise the effect of their economic policies on the Forestry Commission? By publicly putting pressure on the commission to raise money to help pay for the unemployment queues that the Government have generated, they are allowing the market to affect the Forestry Commission in such a way that it has to sell more and more land at lower and lower prices. The market knows that it has only to wait until the price drops because the Forestry Commission has to sell. Is that not an economic contradiction of a most abject kind in dealing with our natural resources?

Mrs. Fenner: There is no question of selling off assets cheaply simply to meet financial targets. The aim is to maximise income from individual sales for the benefit of the taxpayer. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the aim is to reduce that part of the Forestry Commission's grant-in-aid which finances the forestry enterprise—no more, no less.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Minister realise that her answer will cause consternation among all who are interested in forestry in this country? Why cannot we be told, for example, the original purchase price of Glen Affric, the sale price, and how much money the commisssion has invested? We need to be satisfied that the sale represents a fair return to the taxpayer and is not a matter of plundering the public purse for private gain?

Mrs. Fenner: It would be a breach of confidentiality to announce the details.

Mr. Canavan: Public money and assets are involved.

Mrs. Fenner: I know the hon. Gentleman's fixation about disposing of anything that belongs to the state, but I repeat that the amount of plantable and plantation land sold is 1·5 per cent. of the total.

Dairy Products

Mr. Colin Shepherd: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the present level of self-sufficiency in dairy products in the United Kingdom.

Mr. MacGregor: Estimates prepared by the Milk Marketing Board indicate that in 1982 for milk and milk products the United Kingdom was 91 per cent. self-sufficient in butterfat and 131 per cent. self-sufficient in solids non-fat.

Mr. Shepherd: Does my hon. Friend agree that that enormous increase in self-sufficiency is a remarkable track record for an industry which, over the years has shown immense technical expertise, innovation and ingenuity? When he and his hon. Friend have analysed the current proposals that are being studied, will he take great care not to adopt a course that will result in the stultification or ossification of an industry that is so important to the United Kingdom economy?

Mr. MacGregor: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's tribute to the industry. It is interesting to note that much of the movement towards self-sufficiency has taken place during the last few years. The increases in the production of milk products reduce the need for imports, provide additional jobs in the industry, as well as in manufacturing, and help our economy in many other

ways. In our discussions on the surpluses Community-wide and the problems involved, we do not intend to agree to solutions which will ossify the industry in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. William Ross: Does the Minister agree that during the past few years farmers have been encouraged to increase dairy production, but that their efforts have been ruined as a result of the decision taken last night in the House?

Mr. MacGregor: As I said in the wide-ranging debate that we had last night, we do not believe that it will have those consequences. In our view, that is not the kind of problem that we face as a result of the tremendous improvements in production that the industry has carried out in the past few years.

Mr. Deakins: Is it not clear that milk processors in the United Kingdom are being encouraged to see an expanded market for their production, in spite of widespread Community surpluses, by the principle of degressivity for New Zealand butter imports?

Mr. MacGregor: They would have a tiny impact on the surpluses and other problems.

Mr. Leigh: Will my hon. Friend comment on the disturbing rumours that were apparent yesterday afternoon in the House that some parts of the Dairy Trade Federation favour the importation of raw milk in tanker loads from the continent so as to undermine the Milk Marketing Board?

Mr. MacGregor: Certainly we received representations to that effect. However, I repeat what I said in the House last night — that my right hon. Friend totally resisted such requests in connection with the regulations which the House agreed last night.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that his statement last night during the dying moments of the debate caused great consternation, and that it is denied by the Dairy Trade Federation? Which organisations or bodies made representations to him on the importation of raw milk? Will he publish the list in the Library?

Mr. MacGregor: Last night I made it clear that the discussions were in confidence. I said that representations were made to my right hon. Friend that under the regulations we should consider the introduction of certain types of raw milk for processing.

European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund

Mr. Rogers: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the suspension of payments under the EAGGF.

Mr. Jopling: The European Commission has suspended until the end of 1983 advance payments of certain subsidies. However, traders can apply for advance payments to be made when the suspension ends. The measure does not affect the normal payment of subsidies on completion of the necessary formalities.

Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister accept that this is yet another symptom of the virtual bankruptcy of the European Community because of the common agricultural policy? Will the Government press for fundamental reform of this policy before the Prime Minister capitulates on the raising of own resources?

Mr. Jopling: The cash crisis in the Community has been signalled by successive British Ministers in several of the Community's Councils for many years. It cannot have come as a surprise. The post-Stuttgart talks, in which some of us have been heavily involved in recent weeks, stem entirely from the welcome decision at the European Council meeting in Stuttgart to put the house in order. This is what we are trying to do.

Fishing Industry

Mr. Austin Mitchell: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received on the subject of renewal of the temporary operating aid for the fishing industry.

Mr. MacGregor: We have received representations from two fishing organisations and one vessel owner.

Mr. Mitchell: If the Minister receives a flood of representations as a result of this question, will he remember that the operating subsidy is the only measure that has sustained confidence in an industry that has been crippled with debt and allowed some sections of the English fishing industry to keep going? Without a renewal of that operating subsidy those sections will be threatened, as will the confidence of banks that have made loans to the industry.

Mr. MacGregor: I discussed this matter with the National Federation of Fishermens Organisations, which drew attention to the problems in Grimsby. It would be difficult to justify an operating subsidy not only because our previous subsidy has been declared to be incompatible with Community rules but because we now have the possibility of more certainty in the industy as the common fisheries policy moves into operation. I snail shortly be announcing one part of that policy, the structures programme, which will be relevant to these problems and will put some cash into the industry.

Mr. Michael Brown: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement regarding the restructuring of the fishing industry.

Mr. MacGregor: We are working towards introducing, as soon as possible, grants for decommissioning and laying up fishing vessels, and for exploratory voyages and joint ventures. National and European Community grants for building and modernising vessels will also be available.
To ensure that finance is available to meet claims for payment in this financial year under the new scheme, provision of £4 million has already been sought for decommissioning grants in the Winter Supplementary Estimates.

Mr. Brown: While appreciating what my hon. Friend has just said, and following from the question asked by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell)——

The Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must ask his own question.

Mr. Brown: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Does my hon. Friend accept that, while the fishing vessel owners and fishermen will be delighted with what he has just said, there are tremendous problems because of the high cost of

landing fish at Grimsby? Will any restructuring proposals include some finance to alleviate the cost of landing fish at that port?

Mr. MacGregor: I do not believe that the restructuring proposals—the vast majority of which are linked to the EC programme—deal with the problem of the cost of landing fish, but, undoubtedly, they will be relevant to the Grimsby fishing industry in other ways.

Mr. Beith: Does the Minister realise that fishermen in the north east of England find it impossible to put their hearts into restructuring discussions when they feel that they have been badly let down over such key elements in the fishing industry as herring and sprat fishing and lobster and white fish sizes, which make it impossible to maintain the type of fishery that we want?

Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Gentleman has asked a number of questions about the CFP, and I hope to answer these points later today. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate the CFP before too long. If so, I shall be able to go into the detail that the question justifies.

Mr. Maclennan: Will the Minister give an assurance that the restructuring proposals will make some recommendations about the entitlement of former trawlermen to statutory redundancy pay?

Mr. MacGregor: That is not part of the restructuring proposals, and it would not be a part of the European Community's programme — I am considering the national implementation. This matter is for another Department.

Drainage Schemes

Mr. Kenneth Carlisle: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will review the methods used for cost benefit analysis of large drainage schemes.

Mrs. Fenner: The methods used for cost benefit analysis of land drainage schemes are kept under constant review.

Mr. Carlisle: I am glad to hear that, but does my hon. Friend agree that it is wrong that the subsidy for the drainage scheme and the subsidies for the crops to be grown are both included in the benefit? Is it not true that the inclusion of taxpayers' money in the benefit can shift the balance in favour of the destruction of yet another area of diminishing wetlands and that this cannot be changed because the cost benefit analysis is secret?

Mrs. Fenner: I note my hon. Friend's concern, but he will probably know that the question of publishing the results of the cost benefit analysis relating to individual schemes was discussed in another place. The Government undertook to have the matter of disclosure of the cost benefit assessment included in the consultation paper to be issued on the report of the interdepartmental review of land drainage and coast protection.

Mr. Hardy: I am pleased to hear that the matter may be subject to a review. Does the Parliamentary Secretary accept that the vast majority of individuals and organisations involved and interested in conservation take the view that, until now, the lust to promote an ever-growing cereal surplus seems to have received a much higher priority than the retention and safeguarding of the national heritage?

Mrs. Fenner: I dispute that allegation.

Sir Paul Hawkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that if people have not drained their lands by now, they should not still be receiving subsidies? This drainage subsidy has been continuing for far too long.

Mrs. Fenner: I have just pointed out that this matter is under constant review and that an interdepartmental review is being carried out.

Mr. Kirkwood: In view of the importance to the so-called disadvantaged areas of drainage and other schemes, will the Parliamentary Secretary give an assurance that she will do all that she can to promote the special resources that the EC proposes to put into these areas?

Mrs. Fenner: They will form part of our consideration of drainage schemes.

Milk

Mr. Fatchett: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the conditions under which raw milk is sold to the public.

Mr. Jopling: It is necessary to bear in mind both the health factors involved and the desirability of not interfering unnecessarily with the free choice of consumers. The present arrangements are intended to achieve a reasonable balance between those two considerations.

Mr. Fatchett: Is the Minister aware of a recent outbreak of food poisoning in Leeds because of the sale and consumption of raw milk? Does that not suggest that there are risks involved in this sale? Will not that risk be increased if there is major importation of raw milk from the European Community?

Mr. Jopling: I do not believe that this poisoning has anything to do with imports of milk. We are talking about raw milk in this case. I am aware of a recent outbreak of food poisoning in Leeds affecting six people. An immediate ban was imposed on further sales of raw milk for liquid consumption, and all farm milk was required to be heat treated. The arrangements were changed in 1980 when Ministers took the view that those wishing to purchase raw milk—green top milk—should be allowed to do so, provided that they were aware that they were buying untreated milk.

Sir Peter Emery: Does my right hon. Friend realise that if he or any other Minister continues discussions with anyone about the possibility of bulk imports of milk from France there will be uproar, not just from the Opposition Front Bench, but from all parts of the House? Is he aware that such a development must be strongly resisted?

Mr. Jopling: I assure my hon. Friend that we have taken no steps that would allow new supplies of raw milk to be brought into Great Britain at this time.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is the Minister aware that yesterday the Minister of State sought to undermine the credibility and bona fides of the Dairy Trade Federation by claiming that some sections of it supported the import of raw milk? Is he further aware that, in my view, refusing to give information to the House on the ground of confidentiality is an abuse of our procedures? Will he therefore change his mind and tell us who made the representation to him?

Mr. Jopling: I think that my hon. Friend the Minister of State was right not to disclose the details. The matter was raised by one of my hon. Friends. In winding up yesterday's debate my hon. Friend the Minister of State did his best to answer the question in a wholly reasonable way without disclosing details which he felt should not be disclosed.

Edible Oil Industry

Mr. Parry: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the viability of the British edible oil industry.

Mr. MacGregor: The industry is well aware that to maintain its viability and meet the challenge posed by imports it must modernise its operations and improve efficiency. The steps that it is taking are designed to achieve that.

Mr. Parry: In view of increasing EC penetration of the oil market and recent job losses in the industry, will the Minister fight the corner for the industry in the Cabinet with regard to energy costs and port charges, which are subsidised on the continent?

Mr. MacGregor: Those are clearly matters for other Departments. As the industry recognises, the problem is not so much the EC as outdated plant and overcapacity. I regret the closures and redundancies that have resulted from the attempts to restructure and modernise the industry, but they are inevitable and essential if the bulk of the industry is to survive. The edible oil market is a more or less static market. That is one, fairly small, reason why I believe that an oils and fats tax would be highly undesirable, in that it would hamper the industry.

Mr. Rathbone: Can my hon. Friend reassure the House that such a tax will not be imposed under duress from our partners in the EC?

Mr. MacGregor: As I have said before, the matter is still being discussed in the talks on the reform of the CAP. Nevertheless, we have made clear our strong opposition to such a tax and we are supported in that view by a number of other member states.

Agricultural Levies

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what proportion of the food consumed in the United Kingdom in value terms is subject to agricultural levies.

Mrs. Fenner: Levies are charged on certain types of food commodities imported from third countries. These imports account for about one tenth of the total food commodities moving into consumption.

Mr. Fisher: Does not that reply show that the Government's claim that the true cost to the consumer is about £300 million is somewhat misleading? Does she agree with Lloyds bank Bulletin last year that the real cost is about £3,000 million?

Mrs. Fenner: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can determine the cost. It is not meaningful to assume a cost. We are in the European Community and we intend to make the CAP work.

Milk

Mr. Strang: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations has received about the threat to the doorstep milk delivery system arising out of European Community imports of liquid milk.

Mr. Jopling: I have received many representations from individuals and organisations on this issue. This and other aspects of the importation of milk regulations were discussed in yesterday's debate.

Mr. Strang: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if those regulations are the best that the Government can produce there is little hope for the dairy industry in general and for the doorstep delivery system in particular? Is he prepared to go down in history as the Minister who destroyed that viable British social service?

Mr. Jopling: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman makes that comment today. I noted that he listened to some of the earlier speeches yesterday and then left the Chamber. He cannot have forgotten that he was involved in this matter as a Minister in the Labour Government and lifted the gate to allow a large amount of cream to come in from the Community.

Mr. Torney: On what does the Minister base his belief that there is no threat to the doorstep delivery service from the regulations debated yesterday when the Dairy Trade Federation, the Milk Marketing Board and the workers in the industry all say that there is a danger?

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman indulged in his usual shouting match yesterday. He should have listened to what I said. I said that the doorstep delivery service was under threat for various reasons, not least the competition that the supermarkets are conducting among themselves. I told the House that one threat to the doorstep delivery service was Tesco's recent short-term cut of 4p in the price of milk. Actions of that kind are a threat to the doorstep delivery system.

PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Barron: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 November.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I shall be having further meetings later today, including one with President Kyprianou of Cyprus.

Mr. Barron: Is the Prime Minister aware that yesterday the Common Market scored another victory over this country with the threat to doorstep milk deliveries? When will the Government send a representative to fight for this country instead of allowing us to be a Common Market punchbag?

The Prime Minister: The House voted decisively on the matter before it yesterday. I see no reason to fear a threat to doorstep deliveries from the type of milk involved.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister agree with the view expressed on Monday by the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that the west midlands is
between the work-shy North, where there seems to be an attitude of waiting for the Government to bail them out, and the materialistic South?
What help is that kind of slander, even for the people of the west midlands, where unemployment has increased by more than 200 per cent. under the Conservative Government? Will the Prime Minister now disown those comments and require the Minister concerned to make a full apology, preferably to a large public audience in the north of England?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend regrets that his remarks, which were intended to extol the virtues of the west midlands, may have inadvertently caused offence to other parts of the country to the north and to the south and he wishes unreservedly to withdraw them.

Mr. Kinnock: Is the increase in unemployment in all those areas inadvertent or deliberate?

The Prime Minister: That is a very poor question. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the problem of unemployment will be solved when all companies produce efficiently goods which he and his constituents will buy.

Sir Edward Gardner: When my right hon. Friend considers the case of British Aerospace for £400 million of refundable launch aid for the new A320 airbus, will she bear well in mind that British Aerospace has just had an outstanding success in securing £200 million worth of orders for the 146 jet airliners? Is she aware that withdrawal from the European Airbus Industrie Consortium would inevitably put at risk about 20,000 jobs and do grievous harm to the future of British Aerospace?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. and learned Friend said, British Aerospace has had a great success in achieving a new order for 20 aircraft and an option on a further 25. The demand for the Airbus is considerable and worth £440 million. The request must be carefully scrutinised. I do not want another Concorde on my hands. We are anxious that the new aircraft should be a great commercial success. If it is, it will make my decision easier.

Mr. Steel: In view of the policy adopted by the Government in the United Nations on the Falklands issue, and as there is a current round of talks with China about Hong Kong, will the Prime Minister make it clear to the House whether the wishes of the people of Hong Kong are to be as paramount or less paramount than those of the Falklanders?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has missed a fundamental point—the Falkland Islands are freehold, Hong Kong is leasehold. Under the treaty—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very important reply.

The Prime Minister: Under the treaty—which, of course, the Opposition may not wish to honour—about 95 per cent. of the land reverts to China in 1997. The existence of the lease is causing great problems in the sense that most of the people of Hong Kong would wish to preserve the status quo. Nevertheless, that treaty exists.

Mr. Montgomery: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 17 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Montgomery: Sometime during her busy day, will my right hon. Friend study events in the north west of England, especially the dispute between the Messenger Newspaper group and the National Graphical Association? Is she aware that the union is defying the law by its illegal picketing and that there is harassment and intimidation of workers? Would it not be refreshing if the Leader of the Opposition were publicly to condemn the union bullyboys, preferably at a public meeting in the north of England where the workers are picketing?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that the Government utterly condemn all attempts by trade unions to impose membership on employees, either by blacking employers or by unlawful picketing. I understand that the Messenger Newspaper group is trying to enforce an injunction today, and, therefore, it would not be appropriate for me to comment further upon the matter.

Mr. Dalyell: Freehold or not, what will the Government do about last night's United Nations resolution?

The Prime Minister: We shall carry on as before. To honour the wishes of the Falkland Islanders would be wholly in keeping with the wishes of the Government. It used also to be in accordance with the wishes of the Opposition. I hope that it still is.

Mr. John Carlisle: As this is the last Question Time that my right hon. Friend will attend before going to the Commonwealth conference, may I ask her to assure the House that she will resist any attempts by other Commonwealth leaders to stiffen the Gleneagles agreement and will maintain the rights of British sportsmen to play wherever they wish throughout the world, including South Africa?

The Prime Minister: I expect the Gleneagles agreement to be maintained in its present form.

Mr. Alton: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 17 November.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Alton: Given that local expenditure has increased by 20 per cent. less than central Government expenditure since 1979, on what evidence does the Prime Minister base her oft-repeated claim that central Government are more efficient, better managed and less wasteful than local government?

The Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have made strenuous attempts to cut down the bureaucracy in central Government. As he will also know, having heard it from this Dispatch Box many times, we now have fewer people in the Civil Service than at any time in the post-war period. That fact demonstrates the efforts that we have made. We hope that similar efforts will be made by local authorities.

Mr. Tapsell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the world seems to have entered upon an exceptionally dangerous phase in its history? Will she consider, in these critical times, inviting Lord Carrington to resume his post at the Foreign Office?

Mr. Skinner: This question has been planted.

The Prime Minister: I know that my hon. Friend will be pleased to hear that there is an important international post in mind for Lord Carrington.

Mr. Cowans: Will the Prime Minister reflect on her answer to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, which will bring no consolation to the people of the north? Will the right hon. Lady further reflect that not so long ago she stood at the Dispatch Box and praised those people, who are now being called work-shy by one of her Ministers, for their efforts to get aircraft carriers to sea during the Falklands crisis? Although the right hon. Lady has made excuses for her hon. Friend, she has not withdrawn, on behalf of the Government, all of his remarks, nor has she dissociated herself from them. I plead with her to withdraw those remarks because they are an insult, not only to my constituents, but to her own constituents in the south.

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening, he would have heard exactly what I said. Those remarks were unreservedly withdrawn.

Mr. Canavan: Sack him.

The Prime Minister: When an apology is made in the House it is normally accepted gracefully.

Mr. Amery: When my right hon. Friend meets President Kyprianou, will she make it clear that while we deplore deeply the unilateral declaration of independence of Mr. Denktash, there is no question of Britain imposing sanctions on the Turkish Cypriots? Equally, it would be quite unrealistic to ask the Turkish Government to withdraw their recognition of the Denktash regime. Is it not our moral obligation to use our good offices to try to bring the two parties together?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my right hon. Friend. We are trying to do everything we can to bring the two parties together. We are directing our efforts to restoring a unitary state of Cyprus, which I am sure is what my right hon. Friend would wish, as he played so large a part in some of the early negotiations. It would not be helpful to go into other possibilities until we have seen whether we can achieve that most desirable purpose.

National Health Service Accounts

Mr. Ralph: Howell asked the Prime Minister if, in the light of the information sent to her by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North she has any plans to require the preparation of revised National Health Service accounts for 1981–82.

The Prime Minister: The National Health Service summarised accounts for 1981–82 have been presented to Parliament
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services is actively pursuing various points that arise on National Health Service expenditure and efficiency, but the accounts themselves will not be re-opened.

Mr. Howell: Does my right hon. Friend agree, having read the strongly worded report of the National Associaton of Health Authorities in England and Wales on losses, theft and fraud, and having seen other evidence of waste in the National Health Service, that the accounts as certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General for 1980–81 and 1981–82 are almost certainly incorrect?

The Prime Minister: I saw the evidence sent to me by my hon. Friend, and I regard it very seriously indeed. The Public Accounts Committee took evidence this week from the accounting officers concerned, and I look forward to its report in due course. As my hon. Friend knows, the efficiency of the Comptroller and Auditor General and his Department passed under the National Audit Act 1983 to the House itself. I hope that this matter will be pursued vigorously.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Prime Minister aware that despite the provisions of the NHS—fraud or not—thousands of disabled people are suffering discrimination every day? If the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment)

Bill is defeated by Conservative Members, will that not constitute the gravest betrayal of the disabled that this House has ever known?

The Prime Minister: The Government have an excellent practical record in helping the disabled, both with eligibility for benefits and with increased cash benefits. For example, invalidity benefit — [Interruption.] Opposition Members may not wish to hear the facts, but they are going to. In 1983–84 invalidity benefit will be 29 per cent. higher in real terms than it was in 1978–79; attendance allowance will be 73 per cent. higher; non-contributory and invalidity pensions will be 35 per cent. higher and mobility allowance will be a massive three and a half times what it was in 1978–79. That is the Government's practical record.

Business of the House

Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 21 NOVEMBER—Consideration of a timetable motion on the Telecommunications Bill.
Opposition day (3rd Allotted day) (Second part). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on co-operation and economic development in the Commonwealth.
Motion on European Community documents 6374/83, 6450/83 and 6375/83 on coal and steel.
TUESDAY 22 NOVEMBER— Second Reading of the Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill.
Debate on a motion to approve the third report from the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) Session 1982/83 relating to a new parliamentary building (phase I).
WEDNESDAY 23 NOVEMBER — Opposition day (4th Allotted Day). Subject to be announced.
Motion on European Community documents 4342/83 and 8124/83 on shipments of hazardous waste.
THURSDAY 24 NOVEMBER—There will be a debate on a motion to approve the Chancellor of the Exchequer's autumn statement.
FRIDAY 25 NOVEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 28 NOVEMBER—A debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.

(i) Debate on 21 November:

Social measures in the steel industry: contribution to ECSC budget 1983–86—Doc. No. 6375/83.

Fourth Report on aids to the steel industry—Doc. No. 6374183.

General objectives for steel 1985 — Doc. No. 6450/83.

Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee:

HC 78-i (1983–84) paras. 3 and 4.

HC 34-vii (1982–83) para. 3.

Debate on 23 November:

Supervision and control of trans frontier shipment of hazardous wastes—Doc. Nos. 4342/83 and 8124/83.

Relevant reports of the European Legislation Committee:

HC 34-xv (1982–83) para. 2.

HC 78-iii (1983–84) para. 1.

Mr. Kinnock: Will the right hon. Gentleman reconsider guillotining the Telecommunications Bill next Monday, as the available evidence shows that public opinion has swung heavily against the privatisation of British Telecom?
On Tuesday, the House will be asked to give a Second Reading to a Bill that exempts the Stock Exchange from part of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act 1976, while at the same time the Government are trying to impose unwarranted restrictions on trade unions. Is that coincidence of events evidence of governmental irony, schizophrenia or hypocrisy?
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the debate on the motion to approve the third report of the Select

Committee relating to the new parliamentary building will be open-ended so that hon. Members who wish to participate will have the opportunity to do so?
The Opposition are awaiting the expenditure statement this afternoon before deciding on the subject for debate during the Opposition day next Wednesday. Our decision will be communicated to the right hon. Gentleman through the usual channels as quickly as possible.
Why are the Government ordering Ministers to cancel scheduled meetings tomorrow, and why are they deliberately organising Conservative Members to defeat the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that that Bill, which has all-party support, is designed for the sole purpose of improving the welfare and status of the disabled? Does he agree that the connivance of his Whips against the Bill offends against both the conventions of the House and plain decency?

Mr. Biffen: Perhaps I can start at the same point as the right hon. Gentleman started—with the opinion polls and the Telecommunications Bill. I happened to observe in today's Daily Telegraph that the right hon. Gentleman is slipping in the opinion polls. I would not draw any ungenerous conclusion from that statistical aberration. I invite him to show the same generosity towards the Telecommunications Bill. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is underpricing himself.
The Second Reading of the Restrictive Trade Practices (Stock Exchange) Bill on Tuesday will deal with a serious matter. The House will wish to address itself to all the principles involved, and it will be able to do so without plundering the dictionary for the terms "hypocrisy", "schizophrenia" or "irony".
I am happy to confirm that the debate on the proposed new parliamentary building will be open ended so that there can be the widest possible participation in the debate and decision.
The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill is scheduled as a private Member's Bill for discussion tomorrow. I have noted the deft and skilful way in which the right hon. Gentleman has sought to drive some imaginary wedge between the Chief Whip and myself. Tomorrow is a private Members' day, and after the decision is taken we will consider the matter further.
On the subject of the Opposition day on Wednesday, I quite understand the attitude adopted by the right hon. Gentleman.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before I call the next hon. Gentleman I must point out that there are two important statements and an important debate to follow. Could questions be directed to business next week, please?

Mr. John Stokes: Will my right hon. Friend find time next week for a debate on the most important topic of public order? Will he bear in mind the continuing misbehaviour, both at this place and at Greenham common, of the CND women who are trying to force their minority opinions on the whole country?

Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer any formal time next week, which is within the Government's gift, for the debate mentioned by my hon. Friend. However, the debate on the Chancellor's autumn statement will enable him to reflect upon the Home Office budget, and he may care to make his speech in that context.

Mr. A. J. Beith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that during Question Time today the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that there was a need for an early debate on the common fisheries policy? Will he endeavour to provide time for such a debate soon?

Mr. Biffen: Certainly.

Mr. Tony Marlow: As today is the first anniversary of the day on which the first Telecommunications Bill was laid, and as we are still on page 2, does my right hon. Friend accept that the fact that the timetable motion is to be introduced only on Monday is a demonstration of the patience and forbearance of the Government?

Mr. Biffen: It is a patience matched only by those who serve on the Committee.

Mr. Donald Coleman: The Leader of the House will be aware of the anxieties felt in south Wales about the Severn bridge. Notwithstanding the statement to be made today, will he arrange for an early debate in the House about a second crossing of the river Severn as it is vital to the people of south Wales and the south Wales economy?

Mr. Biffen: I can give no such undertaking. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to hear the statement that will soon be made.

Sir David Price: With regard to next Tuesday's debate on phase I of a new parliamentary building, will my hon. Friend make a statement about the increasing practice of right hon. and hon. Members and members of staff who are not disabled parking their cars in that part of Star Court which is reserved for disabled drivers?

Mr. Biffen: That is an important point. I shall certainly be in touch with my hon. Friend about it. However, I think that direct contact in this instance might be better than trying to raise the matter in Tuesday's debate.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: As it is well known on both sides of the House that, through the hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Garel-Jones), the Government are organising opposition to the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons (Amendment) Bill which is lo be debated tomorrow, will the Leader of the House assure us that the Government intend to honour their commitment to introduce their own legislation on discrimination against disabled people?

Mr. Biffen: There is no Whip.

Mr. Toby Jessel: Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate last night's disgraceful events surrounding the football match in Luxembourg, which has always been a most friendly country? Are we not approaching the time when the damage to Britain's good name that is caused by a bunch of uncivilised louts can no longer be tolerated? Is it not time that, if the Football Association cannot take effective action by itself, we considered a ban, if necessary, for a trial period of one or two years, on sending British football teams abroad?

Mr. Biffen: I am sure that my hon. Friend voices a widely held deep resentment about the behaviour of such people as were in Luxembourg last night. His best means

of pursuing the issue might be as a private Member and seeing what chance he has of raising the matter on the Adjournment.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 268.
[That this House is deeply concerned that this Government has seen fit to appoint a Minister with special responsibility for the West Midlands, when exceptionally high unemployment areas like the Northern Region are completely neglected; and deplores the remarks made by the honourable Member for Coventry South West in a speech reported in the Evening Mail on Tuesday 15th November, in which he referred to the Northern Region as The work-shy north', a description which is patently unfair and contributes nothing to assisting the problems of unemployment in the Northern Region brought about mainly by the policies of the present Government and gives further credibility to the view widely held that this Government has written off the Northern Region as an industrial desert.]
Earlier this afternoon, was a unique occasion for the House, as the Prime Minister withdrew a statement on behalf of an hon. Member who should have come to the House himself to make that withdrawal. As the motion refers to the northern region, and as unemployment there is now rapidly approaching 250,000, will the Leader of the House provide time for an early debate on the northern region so that we can establish the fact that close on 250,000 unemployed people there are not work-shy but have had unemployment imposed on them by the Government's policies?

Mr. Biffen: As to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's comments, I cannot helpfully add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. As to the second, I believe that the speech he would wish to make will reasonably fit in the debate on the Chancellor's autumn statement.

Mr. Robert Adley: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the dilemma in which the east Dorset health authority and, indeed, all other health authorities find themselves as a result of the ruling of the Law Officers of the Crown that owners of Crown land may not apply for planning permission? Is he aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that legislation is urgently required? Although I cannot expect a Bill to be presented next week, will he give an assurance that, in this Session, the Department of the Environment will produce the necessary legislation?

Mr. Biffen: I strongly hope that I can meet my hon. Friend's request.

Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West): For the past three weeks the Leader of the House has said that he will consult the Secretary of State for the Environment about the possibility of a debate on the White Paper entitled "Streamlining the Cities" which includes proposals to abolish the GLC and the metropolitan counties. Will he tell us whether his right hon. Friend has now had enough time to make up his mind? When will we have the debate, or must we draw the conclusion that, because of divisions within the Conservative party about the proposals, the Government are frightened to present the White Paper to the House?

Mr. Biffen: I shall leave aside the ungenerous suggestions in the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. As to the point of substance, I shall be in touch with him.

Mr. James Kilfedder: Will the Leader of the House find time to commend the natural good behaviour of the Ulster supporters who attended the football match in Hamburg yesterday when Northern Ireland won a brilliant victory?

Mr. Biffen: On behalf of many Englishmen, I should like to say that we are overcome with envy.

Mr. Alfred Dubs: Will the Leader of the House find time for an early debate on the vexed issue of the procedures by which official documents and reports are all too frequently given to the media and outside organisations before they are given to Members of Parliament? Will he comment on the recent decision by the Home Office as a result of which the Policy Studies Institute report on the Metropolitan police, which is directly relevant to the Committee stage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill, is not to be made available to the world at large—which includes Members of Parliament —until tomorrow afternoon, although it has been made available, under embargo, to the media and a range of outside organisations? Why do Members of Parliament always come at the end of the queue?

Mr. Biffen: Like many other hon. Members, I can understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. However, the report that he mentioned has been made by an independent body, not a Government Department. I cannot therefore comment on its handling prior to publication.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: May I ask the Leader of the House a question of which I gave his office notice yesterday? Will there be a statement on the issues raised by the publication and use of unpublished Foreign Office telegrams and intelligence reports in The Economist by Sir Nicholas Henderson?

Mr. Biffen: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving notice of his intention to raise that matter with me. I am afraid, however, that I cannot go further than the written reply which he was given yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Robert Parry: The Leader of the House will have seen early-day motion 263 on military trials in Chile which has been signed by 85 hon. Members.
[That this House is concerned at the detention of Jorge Palma Donoso, Carlos Alberto Araneda, Rosa Farias Ogaz, Hugo Marchant Moya, Susana Capriles Rojas, Marta Sivia Soto Gonzales in Chile under decree law 3655 which may mean trial by a military war tribunal by which life imprisonment or even sentence of death may be passed against which there is no right of appeal and which, according to military law, would take place within three days of sentence; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to make strong and urgent representations to the Government of Chile for them to be tried by procedures which conform to international law; and calls for the restoration of human rights in Chile.]
Will he ask the Foreign Secretary to make urgent representations to the Chilean Government against those trials, in view of possible early executions, and for the restoration of human rights?

Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly make the representations that the hon. Gentleman requests.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Has the Leader of the House read the recent condign criticism of his conduct by Mr. Hugh Stephenson, who was formerely a journalist for The Times? Will he now arrange for an early debate censuring himself on his conduct in relation to the takeover of Times Newspapers by the country's leading pornographer, Mr. Rupert Murdoch?

Mr. Biffen: No, because I do not believe that my conduct merits such a course.

Mr. Tom Cox: In view of this week's events in Cyprus and statements on it that have been made by senior Ministers, will the Leader of the House seriously consider arranging an early debate on Cyprus so that the House can be made fully aware of the Government's attitude to Britain being a guarantor power and of the Government's stand in debates at the United Nations on this tragic issue?

Mr. Biffen: The hon. Gentleman has a long-standing and recognised interest in the Cyprus issue. I shall of course refer his comments to my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, but I must make it clear that there can be no question of Government time being made available for such a debate next week.

Mr. Eddie Loyden: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate, or for a statement to be made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, on reports that have appeared in the press about his seeking powers to intervene in the rights and responsibilities of democratically elected local authorities?

Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that.

Mr. Dave Nellist: Has the Leader of the House seen early-day motion 172 on youth training schemes? It has more signatories than any other early-day motion on today's order paper.
[That this House is concerned at the lack of legal protection, particularly in areas of health and safety, afforded by the present government to youngsters on the youth training scheme and supports the immediate introduction of legislation to amend this situation.]
The Health and Safety Commission announced regulations this week and comments on them are supposed to be received by 12 December. Will he assure the House that those regulations will be brought before the House before Christmas so that the promise made by the Secretary of State for Employment that they will come into effect at the beginning of 1984 will be honoured?

Mr. Biffen: I recognise the widespread interest that is taken in the topic which the hon. Gentleman has raised. I shall examine the circumstances that he has identified and be in touch with him.

The Economy

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Nigel Lawson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement.
As my predecessor did last year, I am laying before the House today an autumn statement which brings together certain matters customarily announced at this time of year. The statement contains the Government's outline public expenditure plans for 1984–85, proposals: for national insurance contributions for next year, and the forecast of economic prospects for 1984 required by the Industry Act.
In response to firm monetary policies the past year has seen falling inflation, renewed growth and solid evidence of our continuing recovery from world recession. Progress both on inflation and on growth this year has been better than expected at the time of the Budget
Since the low point of the recession in early 1981, output has grown by about 5 per cent. inflation has fallen from double figures to around 5 per cent., and there have been significant gains in productivity, competitiveness and profitability. Employment appears now to be rising, and unemployment to be levelling off. Output this year is expected to be about 3 per cent. higher than in 1982, and the Industry Act forecast points to continuing growth next year. Recovery in the rest of the world, so far hesitant outside North America, is now widely expected to show some improvement. With higher exports offsetting some slowdown in the growth of domestic demand, overall United Kingdom output is forecast to rise by a further 3 per cent. in 1984. With inflationary pressures remaining weak, inflation is likely to edge down again next year to a rate of around 4·5 per cent. by the fourth quarter.
Downward pressure will continue to be exerted on public borrowing. Despite the measures I announced on 7 July it is clear that this year's public sector borrowing requirement is likely to be above the £8·2 billion expected at the time of the Budget. The outturn is, of course, still uncertain but is now forecast to be £10 billion, mainly as a result of public expenditure running higher than expected, as I indicated to the House on 7 July.
For next year, 1984–85, the forecast makes the conventional assumptions that the direct taxes and excise duties are both revalorised in line with prices, and that the PSBR is held next year to the £8 billion assumed at the time of the last Budget in accordance with the medium term financial strategy. On this basis the forecast implies the need for some net increase in taxes in next year's Budget. As the House will recognise, this is, of course, at this stage, subject to a wide margin of uncertainty, and will need to be reviewed, with other relevant factors, in the light of more up-to-date information, before I come to make my Budget judgment.
Following this year's public expenditure review, the public expenditure planning total for next year, 1984–85, will remain at £126·4 billion. The House will recall that that was the provisional figure for 1984–85 published in the public expenditure White Paper in February this year. It is also broadly the same in real terms as the likely outturn for this year, 1983–84. So, with the economy expanding, public expenditure should continue to fall as a percentage of gross domestic product next year.
Within the unchanged total for 1984–85 there have inevitably been changes in both directions in individual

programmes. The details are contained in the autumn statement itself. In broad terms, it shows increases in spending for health and personal social services, education, law and order, agricultural support, arts and libraries, and a number of other programmes. Social security spending will also increase, although there will be reductions in the coverage of help with housing costs, particularly housing benefit. The social security programme provides for an uprating in November 1984 based on the rise in prices in the 12 months to May 1984.
These increases are offset by higher receipts from the sale of council houses and the like, and by a reduction in planned spending on home improvement grants, defence, employment, trade and industry, and several other programmes, including the aggregate external financing limits of the nationalised industries. Net receipts from special sales of assets are forecast to increase by some £400 million, reflecting, among other things, the fact that the privatisation of Enterprise Oil is now expected not this year but in 1984–85.
As the House will be aware, the February White Paoer provided for a provisional contingency reserve of £3 billion. That figure remains intact.
The 1983 review of expenditure plans has, of course, also covered 1985–86 and 1986–87. Details of the plans for both those years will be published in next year's public expenditure White Paper.
The Government have also reviewed their manpower requirements for the years up to 1988. My right hon. and learned Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury is today publishing details of our new plans for a continued steady reduction in the size of the Civil Service. Numbers will come down to 593,000 by 1988, a fall of 6 per cent. below the existing target of 630,000, which we expect to be achieved on or before 1 April 1984.
I come, lastly, to national insurance contributions. As the House knows, these are reviewed every autumn in the light of advice from the Government Actuary on the prospects for the national insurance fund in the coming financial year. As usual, the earnings limits will need to be increased. The lower earnings limit will rise to £34 a week, in line with the single rate retirement pension, and the upper earnings limit will rise to £250 a week, broadly in line with the increase in prices and earnings. The taxpayers' contribution to the fund — the so-called Treasury supplement — will be reduced from 13 per cent. to 11 per cent. Finally, in each of the past four years we have had to increase the class I national insurance contribution rate itself. I am glad to say that we shall not need to do so for 1984–85. So the full class I rate will remain unchanged at 9 per cent. for employees and 10·45 per cent. for employers. As is customary, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will this afternoon announce details of the changes in the Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order and will lay before Parliament the accompanying report by the Government Actuary.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has already announced, the House will have an opportunity next week to debate the autumn statement, which is now available from the Vote Office.
For the first time for many years we are now enjoying low inflation combined with steady growth. This is a winning combination. Our task is to keep that winning combination by sticking to—and indeed reinforcing—the policies that have brought it about.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The whole House will hope that the Government's forecasts of recovery and growth will be proved right this time. Can the Chancellor reinforce that hope by telling us why his forecasts about the economic prospects are markedly more optimistic than those of any of the independent forecasts — more optimistic, indeed, than those of the Confederation of British Industry, particularly in terms of investment prospects? I shall make the charitable assumption that the Government's predictions are accurate and objective. On that hypothesis, will the Chancellor confirm that, even on his own figures, living standards in this country, after four and a half years of Conservative Government, are still lower than they were under a Labour Government in 1979, and that the overall level of output is no higher than it was when the Labour Government left office?
If we take into account the contribution made to our economic condition by the wholly fortuitous oil output — the figures for which have mysteriously been removed from most of the Government's statistical abstracts—there has been, during four and a half years of Conservatism, a calamitous fall in output in this country. Will the Chancellor also confirm that manufacturing output will be lower at the end of the life of this Parliament than it was when the Government took office, and that at the present rate of growth there will not be a return to Labour levels of output until after 1993?
Furthermore, will the Chancellor admit that the signs of life about which he has been so jubilant are at least in part the result of the brief recovery in housing investment and the relaxation of public expenditure controls on monetary policy, which were introduced in preparation for the election last spring? Today's improvements stem from the temporary reversal, not from the long-term success, of Government policy. Instead of learning that lesson, the Government now propose to return to their obsession with public expenditure.
In the light of that, I ask the Chancellor a number of specific questions. Why could he not bring himself to tell the House about the adjustments to fuel prices that he is forcing? It would have done him and the Government more credit had he faced that today rather than punish his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy—who did not want the increases — by forcing him to make a subsequent announcement.
I shall ask the right hon. Gentleman about the fuel price increases, which we all know are coming, and about which the boards complain. Why did he not tell the House honestly — will he eventually tell the House—that the gas and electricity price increases on which he is insisting, and which are part of his economic prescription, are a badly disguised fuel tax; that the Gas Corporation could cut prices by 10 per cent. and still have an operating profit of £150 million; and that the electricity boards exceed Government profit targets by £500 million? Will he try to justify forcing those utilities into increasing their prices in a way that damages industry and causes immense hardship to domestic consumers?
Secondly, will the Chancellor tell us more about tax increases? The total tax bill under this Government has increased from 39·6 per cent. of national income to 45·7 per cent. Therefore, £18 billion more is taken in tax than was the case under the Labour Government. According to

this statement, higher taxes are on the way. When does the Chancellor hope to be able to return to the level of taxation enjoyed by this country under the Labour Government?
Thirdly, when will the Chancellor come to grips with the reality rather than the mythology of economic management? Today he talked about the monetary and fiscal targets as if they were mystic numbers that have an independent virtue. He was particularly proud of holding public expenditure to £126·4 billion. I congratulate him on keeping faith with arithmetic, but to do so he has broken faith with the electorate.
Today the Chancellor has spoken of his forecasts requiring increased taxes. Is he softening up the 1922 Committee and the public for what he is proposing next March? If we are to have more taxes in the spring can we be assured that they will fall upon those people most able to bear them rather than concentrating on the lower income group, as has been his practice?
Finally, will the Chancellor confirm that unemployment has risen by 2 million in four and a half years under this Government, and on honest calculations by 218,000 over the past year? He now asks us to be grateful for the fact that it has fallen by a measly 7,000. That amounts to 0·35 per cent. of the unemployment that the Government have created. Is it not a fact that, even if the Chancellor's wildest predictions are true, that under present policies, there will be no significant fall in unemployment during this Parliament's lifetime? If I am wrong, will the Chancellor forecast unemployment over the next four years? If he will not, his policy and that of the Government stand utterly condemned.

Mr. Lawson: May I start by welcoming the right hon. Gentleman to his new shadow office. I am sure that he will improve with time. I shall reply briefly to his specific questions. During the previous Parliament we were able to reduce income tax at all levels. However, we were not able to reduce the overall burden of taxation. Given the continuation of existing policies, we shall be able to reduce the overall burden of taxation during this Parliament's lifetime. As for the next Budget, however, the right hon. Gentleman will have to wait and see.
On unemployment, the right hon. Gentleman should know that no Government—even those of whom he has been a member — ever make a long-term forecast of unemployment. Both sides of the House share his hope that unemployment will fall. It is not a matter that is entirely within the Government's control, as he should know.
The right hon. Gentleman asked me about fuel prices. Gas and electricity prices are in no sense a hidden tax. Perhaps I may explain the position to the right hon. Gentleman.
the principle that prices should reflect costs of supply on a continuing basis while providing an adequate return on capital is now firmly established. Prices are important, above all, because they are all-pervasive, affecting the millions of individual decisions over which the Government can have no direct control.… Since the object is to guide investment and other decisions that will affect future events, the relevant cost is the cost incurred or saved in expanding or contracting supplies at present or in the future, rather than an average of past costs. Energy prices should at least cover the cost at which supplies can be provided on a continuing basis, while yielding an adequate return to investment.
I am quoting from the Labour Government's Green Paper published in 1978, when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection.

Mr. Hattersley: The House will have noticed that, to those questions that I was able to cobble together in my apprentice incompetence, there has been no answer, except for a quotation from my former right hon. and temporarily departed friend Mr. Benn, which referred to a time when we were not making substantial profits in gas and electricity but were moving towards those utilities breaking even. We shall pursue the Chancellor in the hope, though it may be in vain, that he will answer some of the questions in a week's time.
Today I simply return to one question. The Chancellor tells us that he cannot give us an unemployment forecast. I therefore put this to him. Why was he so ready to make predictions about unemployment during the general election campaign but fails to do so under the scrutiny of the House of Commons? As I have no more faith in him answering that question than any of the others, I shall tell him that the reason why he will not make any predictions about unemployment today is that the prospects of growth and recovery are as bogus as he is complacent.

Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman should react to good economic news in such a sour and grudging way. During the election campaign I said that there was a good chance that unemployment might start to fall during 1984. That is still the case, but it remains to be seen whether it does. Meanwhile the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that over the past three months adult unemployment, seasonally adjusted, has fallen by 7,000.

Mr. Edward du Cann: Many of us believe that, besides satisfying other social needs, a greater degree of employment in the construction industries needs to be created. During my right hon. Friend's term of office, which we all hope will be long and successful, will he ensure that a greater proportion of Government expenditure goes on capital projects, and that the bias in favour of administration and against capital projects is removed? Not least, will he take an initiative to ensure that capital projects, wherever possible, are privately funded? In that way it will be possible to transform the employment position in the construction industries to which I have referred.

Mr. Lawson: I respect my right hon. Friend's interest in that matter, which he has pursued for many years as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, Chairman of the Treasury Civil Service Committee and in other capacities. He will be pleased to note that in the forecast for 1984, which we publish today, consumer expenditure is expected to rise by 2·5 per cent. and fixed investment expenditure by 4 per cent.

Mr. Roy Jenkins: Is the Chancellor aware that the great weakness in the balance of the economy is the low level of public investment? He cannot deny that it has fallen by 40 per cent. in real terms during 10 years and is now lower than at any time since 1914 as a proportion of GNP. In those circumstances, to continue to drive down the PSBR, ineffective though he may be in achieving that, is not sound finance but dogmatic nonsense.

Mr. Lawson: If the Government had not maintained a firm policy of controlling and bringing down the PSBR, interest rates today would not be at their lowest level for more than five years. That is more important to industry

than are the many other suggestions that have been made, especially to the construction industry, about investment projects. It is important to invest overall and not simply in the public sector. One reason for the shift is that the Government believe that, on the whole housing is more effectively and efficiently left to the private sector than to the public sector. As I pointed out, total public sector investment has been increasing well, and next year we expect fixed investment to increase faster than consumer expenditure.

Mr. Anthony Nelson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one reason why the Government are spending about 45p in every pound is the open-ended statutory commitment to the payment of social security benefits? Does he not agree that we are fast approaching a time when we must seriously consider whether we are serving the long-term interest of the least well-off and the unemployed by increasing benefits at the expense of investment in the capital base of the economy, which in the long run will provide them with real hope for reemployment and higher standards of living?

Mr. Lawson: My hon. Friend rightly implied that those who are calling for increases in public sector capital investment should suggest where savings are to be made on current expenditure to make room for it. One of the biggest increases in public expenditure is on the social security programme.

Mr. Bryan Gould: When will the Chancellor learn the lesson of his own and his predecessors' bitter experience, which is that each time he announces further cuts the counter-productive effect of those cuts makes it inevitable that in a few months he will have to announce yet further cuts? When will he find a way to escape that contractional logic before the real world economy disappears into a monetarist black hole?

Mr. Lawson: There is no question of a black hole, unless it is where the hon. Gentleman has been living. If he were to live in the real world where the sun shines, he would see that there is a recovery from the world recession and a recovery in the United Kingdom economy. As a result of the Government's policies the United Kingdom's economy is growing faster than that of any other country in the European Community.

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on keeping the additional cost to industry of the national insurance contribution below the level of inflation. Will he reconsider the question of energy costs and nationalised industry prices generally? In the present circumstances what does he consider to be an adequate return on capital, bearing in mind that the knowledge of what that capital is is imprecise? An ordinary commercial enterprise would regard the dividend as a guide to the future of the industry and its effect on customers.
Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that capital investment will be kept in line with the sale of assets? If not, I fear that we shall be selling the furniture to pay for the food, and we cannot continue to do that indefinitely.

Mr. Lawson: The sale of assets does not reduce the amount of capital but simply transfers some capital stock from the public to the private sector, where it can be more efficiently used and where a better return can be received for the benefit of Britain as a whole. My right hon. Friend


also asked me about the rate of return on gas and electricity prices. The rate of return on capital to the electricity industry is a little under 2 per cent., and few private enterprises would be prepared to conduct business for such a rate of return. Although pricing policy is a matter for the industries, within the framework set by the Government, it is likely that during the coming year the price of gas and electricity will increase by less than the rate of inflation.

Mr. Donald Stewart: Can the Chancellor explain why the share of public expenditure available to the Secretary of State for Scotland has been steadily reduced? Since the income from the Scottish oilfields is keeping the entire ramshackle British economy afloat, does he not believe that such a reduction would be unacceptable in Scotland, where his party was rejected by 70 per cent. of the electorate?

Mr. Lawson: The Conservative party, and the majority of the Opposition, have always maintained that it is British oil, not uniquely Scottish oil. The right hon. Gentleman's detailed questions are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Nigel Forman: Although I welcome the good prospects for growth and the combating of inflation in the coming period, is not my right hon. Friend a little concerned that the recovery may be lopsided? What steps will he take to ensure that industrial profitability is further improved, and that we have more currency stability so that we can have better prospects of exporting our goods?

Mr. Lawson: I share my hon. Friend's desire for increased profitability, which is a critical ingredient in our long and short-term recovery. I am glad to say that profits are increasing by about 25 per cent. this year, following an increase of more than 20 per cent. last year. They started from a low level, but that is a marked and encouraging recovery. As to the alleged lopsidedness of the recovery, if my hon. Friend examines the table in the autumn statement, which is now available, he will see that consumer expenditure is expected to increase by 2·5 per cent., fixed investment is expected to rise by 4 per cent. next year, and exports will rise by 4 per cent. That is the shape of recovery that my hon. Friend wishes to see.

Mr. John Maxton: Will the Chancellor give some details of the housing benefit changes in Scotland? How much will be cut from Scotland's overall housing budget? What is the Government's estimate of the number of tenants who will be evicted as a result of the changes, and how many houses will become uninhabitable during the next year? How many building companies will go bankrupt, and how many building workers will be declared redundant?

Mr. Lawson: Those matters, if they are matters for anyone in the Government — [Interruption.] Some of them are questions for local government. In so far as they are matters for central Government, they should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. David Howell: What percentage of total Government spending next year will be in the form of fixed capital investment? Will my right hon. Friend undertake at least to consider, in setting out the

Government's accounts in future, presenting a clear distinction between borrowing for capital needs and borrowing for current needs, as was the practice?

Mr. Lawson: I cannot tell my right hon. Friend that now, but the breakdown will be provided in the normal way when the public expenditure White Paper is published. I hope that when it is published we can have a more sensible definition of capital expenditure, which at present leaves much to be desired.

Mr. Richard Wainwright: Does the Chancellor realise that in one and the same statement he has painted a false dawn and then obscured it with heavy clouds of higher taxation, including fuel taxes? Does he realise that his statement does less than nothing for business confidence, which could be the engine of a sustained and genuine recovery through overdue capital expenditure? Does he also realise that a recent survey by the CBI and the British Institute of Mangagement showed conclusively that the four things that industry most needs to provide more jobs, among other things are, more capital spending, lower energy costs, lower interest rates and a stable exchange rate? Why has he been stone deaf to each of those pleas? Why did he not take the advice of the other place, given unanimously on Monday of this week, and take the opportunity to announce that Britain will join the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system?

Mr. Lawson: That last point may be the unanimous opinion of the other place, but I do not detect that it has unanimous support in this House. As at the recent CBI conference there was a vote on the issue and the majority voted against it. The matter is still under review, but the hon. Gentleman should make the issue less of a King Charles' head.
As for doing nothing about interest rates, I agree that interest rates are vitally important to industry, and that is why we are determined to keep Government borrowing down. As a result of that determination, interest rates have come down a full point since the election, to the lowest level for over five years. The CBI reckons that one point off interest rates is worth £300 million.

Mr. John Townend: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having had some success in withstanding the avaricious demands of spending Ministries. Does he agree that the burden of taxation is far too high and that if he is to have any chance of fulfilling our pledge to reduce the level of taxation there will have to be continued pressure to control spending Departments —something that has not happened as well as it should this year—and to cut expenditure?

Mr. Lawson: I agree that we must maintain, throughout this Parliament, firm control on public expenditure. In that way the burden of taxation will be able to fall during the lifetime of this Government.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is the Chancellor aware that, on the question of interest rates, notwithstanding the fact that they have come down by 1 per cent. since the general election, inflation is still running at 5 per cent., and the gap between the rate of inflation and interest rates is at a near historic high, which is one of the main problems? Does not the right hon. Gentleman accept that, after four and a half years, this experiment is not working? I do not know whether Tony Jacklin or the Rolling Stones


have applied to come back to this tax haven, as this Government promised in the election of 1979, but that is truth enough in itself. Is not the fact of the matter that this magic cure of monetarism has failed, and so pathetic are this Government and so booming is our economy that tomorrow morning the Government will not be able to afford to give the disabled a fair crack of he whip and they will be bringing in their people to vote the measure down? What an economy! What a Chancellor!

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has already outlined the Government's excellent record on support for the disabled, and this matter will be further debated tomorrow. As for interest rates, the point with which the hon. Gentleman began, it is perfectly true that under the Labour Government there was not this gap between interest rates and the rate of inflation, but that was because the Labour Government pushed inflation up. That was how they closed the gap. However, that is no good for British industry and the British economy, and it is not the route that this Government will follow.

Mr. Terence Higgins: In the past, my right hon. Friend has stressed the importance of changes in the nominal rate of money supply in relation to inflation as the two affect the real money supply. What assumption has been made in preparing the forecast published today about changes in the real money supply over the forecast period?

Mr. Lawson: To some extent, my right hon. Friend, who is on to a good point, can work it oat for himself. I have said what we expect the rate of inflation to be next year, and the assumed rate of growth of the money supply is 6 per cent. to 10 per cent., as is shown in the Financial Statement and Budget Report made by my right hon. and learned Friend the present Foreign Secretary ealier this year.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Would the Chancellor care to tell the House what reliance his statement is making on oil prices, because the degree of stability in this is likely to be fundamental to his economic strategy? What proportion of gross domestic capital formation will be related to manufacturing industry? What proportion of this increase in exports which he is boasting is oil-based?

Mr. Lawson: The assumption is of a broad stability in oil prices. Manufacturing investment is expected to increase and manufacturing exports are also expected to increase.

Sir William Clark: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the nationalised industries, including gas and electricity, should be run as commercial enterprises, and not as an extension of the welfare state? In view of the fact that the Government are borrowing money at 10 per cent. or 10·5 per cent., and the return on capital from the electricity industry is just under 2 per cent., and that for the gas industry is just under 4 per cent., is there not a subsidy, and is this not giving to rich and poor alike—something that should not be done? May I urge my right hon. Friend to resist the blandishments not to charge a proper price for energy, but instead, where there is need, to help through supplementary benefit?

Mr. Lawson: My right hon. Friend is right, and we do just this. We are spending about £350 million a year on

help for the needy for their fuel costs through the social security system. That is a far more sensible way of helping these people than generalised subsidies on energy prices.

Mr. George Foulkes: Did I mishear the Chancellor saying that the November 1984 social security increaes will be based on the increase in prices from May 1983 until May 1984? Will the Chancellor confirm that the Government have not abandoned their pledge to make good the shortfall that occurred when they moved from the predictive to the historic method of calculation, and will he say precisely how this shortfall will be made up?

Mr. Lawson: There is no shortfall to be made up.

Mr. Foulkes: Yes, there is.

Mr. Lawson: The Government are fulfilling all their pledges. The hon. Gentleman did not mishear. I said that the uprating in November 1984 will be based on the increase in prices between May 1983 and May 1984.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the net receipts from denationalisation of £400 million are welcome, but there is some disappointment that Enterprise Oil has been delayed for a year? Will he give an assurance that he will vigorously support further denationalisation, particularly in energy?

Mr. Lawson: I vigorously support further denationalisation in energy, as in other aspects. When I was Secretary of State for Energy I supported such measures. I can reassure my hon. Friend that it is not a slippage of a year but of a few months that takes Enterprise Oil out of this financial year and into the next one.

Mr. Doug Hoyle: Will the Chancellor note, after his unconvincing and unsatisfactory performance this afternoon, that, judging by the reaction on the Benches behind him, hon. Members appear to prefer even a dead sheep to him? Can he tell us what will be the effect of the rise in fuel tax on the competitiveness of British industry, bearing in mind that its competitiveness now is far worse than it was in 1979, before his Government came into office?

Mr. Lawson: There is no fuel tax. Electricity prices for industry, as I said, are likely to go up this year by less than the rate of inflation, following a year when they did not go up at all. There has been a long freeze on industrial gas prices. Industry is fully appreciative of the energy policies that this Government have been pursuing. What disappoints the hon. Gentleman is that I have not been able to come to the House and please him with bad news.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: While I recognise, as the Chancellor said, that a low rate of inflation and steady growth is a winning combination, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House that in the next few years he will not regard a zero rate of inflation as a primary objective in itself?

Mr. Lawson: I said at the Mansion House, and I repeat today, that our ultimate objective is stable prices. There is no conflict between that and our other objective of sustained economic growth. Indeed, it is the fall in inflation which has been the prime cause of the economic recovery to date.

Mr. Norman Atkinson: If the Chancellor is so committed to growth in employment, why is he


pursuing a deflationary strategy? When he used in his statement the word "productivity", did he mean that output per worker in manufacturing had increased? If so, why is he so concerned about agreeing with the Confederation of British Industry that workers in manufacturing should not go for higher wage increases?

Mr. Lawson: The fact is that manufacturing industry — all credit to it — has improved its productivity unprecedentedly over the past two years. As for pay increases, for manufacturing or any other industry to pay higher wages than the companies concerned can afford is a sure way of losing jobs.

Mr. Peter Hordern: Since neither the electricity industry nor the gas industry thought in its commercial judgment that prices needed to be increased, can my right hon. Friend say by how much he expects the extra revenue from savings in borrowing will exceed the extra industrial cost to industry and the extra cost of old-age pensions and supplementary benefit?

Mr. Lawson: As I mentioned earlier, there is no question of an energy tax as a result of the price changes that are likely to occur for gas and electricity. This is a matter of economic pricing which is in the best interests of the economy as a whole.

Mr. Jack Ashley: In view of our economic difficulties, and the fact that kidney patients are dying because of lack of attention and the long-term unemployed are being forced into penury, why does the Chancellor support the Prime Minister's excessive squandering of £1,000 million in the south Atlantic when millions of our people are in misery?

Mr. Lawson: The right hon. Gentleman's figures are wrong by a wide margin. Nevertheless, there is substantial expenditure on the Falklands. I think it is the wish of the whole House that we should take the steps that are necessary to ensure that the Falkland Islanders may remain at liberty.

Mr. Nicholas Budgen: If my right hon. Friend is serious in wanting a great debate about reductions in public expenditure, will he forthwith publish a Green Paper setting out the policy options, explaining the advantages and disadvantages of the various courses set out and explaining also what the Government's preferences are?

Mr. Lawson: I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: Instead of trying to disguise the mess with pompous pietism and mirage mongering, why does not the Chancellor give the figures? What will be the losses to a housing benefit system which is already inadequate? What will be the increase in gas prices which are already used as a form of backdoor taxation? What will be the increase in electricity prices which are already so high that they are making British industry uncompetitive? Why does he not bring down interest rates which are keeping the pound up and strangling British industry? How much more of the people's property will he have to flog off to disguise the consequences of his failure?

Mr. Lawson: As I intimated before, the likely increases in gas and electricity prices, which are not fixed by the Government, will be below the going rate of inflation. I should have thought that the hon. Member would welome that. As for housing benefit, that is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services. Housing benefit applies to about 7 million households, or one in three, including those well above average income. The savings are chiefly to be made in that area.

Mr. Tim Eggar: Is it not good news that inflation is lower and output higher than was predicted in the last Budget and during the election campaign by my right hon. and learned Friend? Does not this good news give the lie to the doom mongers on the Opposition Benches who have been saying consistently that recovery would not be sustained? The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said it again today. Why do the Opposition go on denigrating the country?

Mr. Lawson: That is a very good question, but it is not one for me to answer. Perhaps the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) would care to answer it if he catches your eye again, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Derek Foster: Has the Chancellor seen the comment of the Institute of Directors that he has failed to cut taxation and public expenditure and seeks to hide that by asset sales and increasing gas prices?

Mr. Lawson: I am surprised but delighted to hear the hon. Member's support for the Institute of Directors. I hope that he will maintain that support throughout this Parliament.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Bearing in mind that right hon. and hon. Members in the Opposition seem to have forgotten the second highest spending Department, Defence, can my right hon. Friend confirm the good news that he is abiding fully by the commitment of Her Majesty's Government to increasing defence spending by 3 per cent. in real terms?

Mr. Lawson: Defence spending for 1984–85 will grow by 3 per cent. in real terms, plus a substantial addition for the Falklands expenditure.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Speaker: Order. As the House knows, there is to be another important statement. I shall call those hon. Gentlemen who are now standing.

Mr. Richard Tracey: May I reassure my right hon. Friend, if he should need it, by reminding him that there are people living in Socialist France who wish that they could have heard a statement such as his today? May I urge him, when he gets the chance, to spell out to the British people that if the Labour party had won the election on 9 June we would have been heading for the same plight?

Mr. Lawson: I shall do my best to make that point. It is a powerful one.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Chancellor aware that in paragraph 2.10 of his statement he says that there will be increased provision for redundant steelworkers and shipbuilding workers—in other words,


more unemployed — and that that increased provision will be more than offset by a reduction in regional development grants and aid to individual companies? By how much will regional development grants and aid to individual companies be reduced, and how many more jobs will that cost?

Mr. Lawson: Regional development grants are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Michael Howard: My right hon. Friend referred to the fact that output is currently rising at a higher rate than it is in any other member country of the European Community. Can he confirm that this is the second consecutive year in which that is true? Can he tell the House when this country last achieved that feat?

Mr. Lawson: That is correct. This year and, indeed, next year the European Commission expects us to have the highest rate of growth in the European Community—for two successive years, something which has never occurred before.

Mr. Bruce Milan: On regional development grants, why did the Chancellor not answer the question that was put to him? A reduction is proposed. That must mean that many areas which are scheduled will be descheduled. Why cannot the Chancellor come clean on that?

Mr. Lawson: The Government will in due course be publishing a paper on the future of regional policy. It will be a discussion document and we will welcome views from all quarters, including those of the right hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Chancellor has explained that he predicts a 4 per cent. increase in investment next year. The sale of 51 per cent. of British Telecom shares is supposed to raise £4 billion to £5 billion, which is roughly the same amount of money that is normally put into manufacturing industry. How by the sale of British Telecom and other measures of denationalisation does he expect to see that 4 per cent. increased investment achieved? If he wants to cut the amount spent on energy, he could do worse than get rid of the 58·5 million tonnes of coal that are stock-piled at the pitheads and the power stations by giving it free to pensioners, so preventing 46,000 people dying from hypothermia if this winter is as bad as that of 1981.

Mr. Lawson: I think that the hon. Gentleman is in a bit of a muddle. The privatisation of British Telecom will be a transfer of a very important part of British industry from the public sector to the private sector. When I was talking about an increase of 4 per cent. in fixed investment next year, that was total investment in the country as a whole, private and public sectors combined.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If the Chancellor of the Exchequer is so cocksure that my right hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ashley) gave the wrong figures for fortress Falklands, presumably he means that he has the right figures. May we have them?

Mr. Lawson: I shall gladly give the hon. Gentleman the figure for the Falklands in the coming year. It is £684 million.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer accept that his

announcement on housing benefits will cause great disappointment and despondency? Does he further accept that people in receipt of housing benefit are among the most disadvantaged of our society? Is he aware that the Government's proposals for the unified benefit have caused a great deal of chaos? Can he justify why he has selected that benefit for his cuts in the social security budget?

Mr. Lawson: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will deal with that matter in more detail in due course. It is ludicrous to suggest that a benefit that goes to about one household in three is solely for those who are worst off.

Mr. Ken Eastham: In his statement the Chancellor of the Exchequer claimed that the economy was expanding and he made the pious remark that we can now all share in the growth. May I remind him that 250,000 young people are now on youth training schemes and receive only £25 a week, and that that amount has not been increased since 1978? Is it reasonable to suppose that they will share in that growth?

Mr. Lawson: The youth training scheme is the most imaginative scheme of its kind ever introduced. I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would welcome it.

Mr. Max Madden: Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer give a clear assurance to all those in the real world who are dependent on social security benefits, including unemployment benefit that in the coming year those benefits will be increased by at least as much as the increase of the cost of living? What will be done for the long-term unemployed, whose poverty is even now an embarrassment for Government advisers?

Mr. Lawson: As I said, the benefit will be uprated in November 1984 by the increase in the retail price index between May 1983 and May 1984. However, the best thing that can be done for the unemployed is to maintain a sound and healthy economy that will create jobs. That is what our policies are designed to achieve, are already beginning to achieve and will continue to achieve.

Mr. Kevin Barron: Does the Chancellor of the Exchequer recognise that the energy costs of some sections of the engineering industry are as high as 20 per cent. and that the measures in his statement will make them go up again? Once more, manufacturing industry feels that it is being attacked by the Government. The effects on industry in the past four years have been shameful. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his measures are a further attack on the unemployed in that more unemployment will be created in industries that need to be protected? We should not be chasing after those industries and increasing their energy costs to raise money in other areas of the economy.

Mr. Lawson: The hon. Gentleman is right in intimating that we have an energy problem. It is the heavy cost of producing coal is a result of the large number of hopelessly uneconomic pits. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the National Coal Board in its efforts to reduce the costs of producing coal in that way.

Mr. Hattersley: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will recall that the Government Actuary's report, published today, will give the estimate of the number of unemployed that the Government expect over the next year or two. Will


the Chancellor tell us the working total of unemployed that the Government Actuary has recommended the Treasury and other Departments to calculate on? Will he tell us what the figure is? Will he ask the Leader of the House to give the House a report tomorrow on why that document, with that figure in it, which should have been available in the Vote Office at 4 o'clock, was not there a few minutes ago?

Mr. Lawson: I am sorry that the document was not in the Vote Office when it should have been. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will look into whether the right hon. Gentleman's assertion is true, and, if it is, he will consider what should be done. As for the figure, the assumption that has been given to the Government Actuary is 2·85 million.

Severn Bridge

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Nicholas Ridley): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the Severn bridge.
I told the House on 1 November that I considered it prudent to extend the early morning lane restrictions to round the clock, except at weekends, until I received further advice from Flint and Neill. I have now received recommendations from Flint and Neill, agreed by Mott, Hay and Anderson who carried out an independent check of the former's appraisal of the bridge superstructure. I am satisfied that the crossing will continue to be safe to use, with the adoption of the following three recommendations.
First, the closing of one lane in each direction every weekday from 4 am to 8 am, first introduced in March 1982, will be maintained.
Secondly, for eastbound traffic, the M4 carriageway will continue to be restricted to a single lane from the Newhouse roundabout as it has been from time to time since March 1982. Accordingly, one lane each will be available to the M4 traffic and the traffic from Chepstow, respectively.
Thirdly, for westbound traffic, between 8 am and 4 pm on weekdays all goods vehicles in excess of 7·5 tonnes will be channelled through one toll booth. The purpose of this control is to prevent bunching of heavy vehicles; in most circumstances they should be released without delay.
Round-the-clock restrictions will cease as from midnight tonight, and tolls will be reintroduced for eastbound traffic.
I am instituting careful monitoring of incidents causing, or likely to cause, a traffic jam on the bridge. If there is an incident, the following restrictions will be applied until it has been dealt with. If the incident is on the westbound carriageway, westbound traffic will be held at the toll booths and eastbound traffic joining the M4 from Chepstow will be stopped at the Newhouse interchange. Eastbound traffic already on the M4 will not be affected. If the incident is on the eastbound carriageway, eastbound traffic joining the M4 from Chepstow will be stopped at the Newhouse interchange; all westbound heavy goods vehicles will be held at the toll booths.
A different hazard is wind. Traffic will be prevented from using the crossing when both the gust wind speed exceeds 50 miles per hour at deck level of the bridge and the maximum mean hourly wind speed at deck level is forecast to exceed 62 miles per hour. Those conditions are expected to occur no more than once in two or three years on average.
I have set work in hand to improve those systems of traffic control in order to ensure the minimum interference to movement, within the safety limits for the bridge.
Finally, I shall assess with all possible speed the options put forward by Flint and Neill for strengthening the bridge to cope safely with increased loading. As soon as I receive the text of Flint and Neill's report on Mott, Hay and Anderson's check, I shall place a copy of it in the Library.

Mr. John Prescott: The House will welcome the statement, which at least shows a proper sense of urgency in dealing with legitimate public concern about the safety of this important bridge.
Does the Secretary of State now accept that those restrictions and controls, designed to control the flow of


traffic, will be hindered by his recommendation for the reimposition of tolls, which will become a tax on safety? Does he further accept that the Department of Transport's failure to take action has unnecessarily heightened public concern as those restrictions could have teen implemented after he received the Flint and Neill report in October 1982—18 months ago—and certainly after the report of May 1983, six months ago?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the three reports that he has now read show differences in their conclusions ranging from fear of collapse to the need to spend £33 million and to the denial of the necessity to spend £33 million to make the bridge safe? In view of those conflicting views in the consultants' reports, will the right hon. Gentleman co-operate with the Select Committee's investigation into such divided opinion on those essential safety matters? When was the Mott, Hay and Anderson report, which said that there was a serious risk of failure without warning, first available to the Department and when was it first available to the Minister?
Finally, as these extra restrictions and controls fully vindicate the exposure of the issue by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who was accused by the Secretary of State and the Minister of State of misrepresentation and causing further delay, will he now unreservedly withdraw those accusations and congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing forward a matter of major public concern?

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for recognising the urgency and speed with which I have sought to act and with which I shall continue to seek to act, with safety as my first priority and a viable crossing for the maximum amount of traffic as my second. The hon. Gentleman knows that tolls are necessary to repay the cost of building the bridge. There is to be a public inquiry on that subject next year.
The hon. Gentleman appears to be a little muddled about the many reports and cross checks that have been commissioned about the safety of the bridge. I received the final agreed report from the two firms of consulting engineers yesterday. They show no differences in their analyses of the problem and they both entirely agree with and endorse the recommendations for traffic control that I have just announced to the House. I announced them as soon as I received them, and therefore there has been no delay in that matter. They could not be announced before, because they were received only yesterday, or the day before, and that was the first I heard of them.
The Mott, Hay and Anderson report, about which the hon. Gentleman asked, was received on 18 October. It was not until the hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) made a partial disclosure of an unagreed report that I felt it prudent and right, in the interests of reassuring travellers, to impose those restrictions. I believe that I was right to do so, and I am happy to be able to lift them today.

Mr. John Morris: Is there not now a real need for a firm commitment by the Government to a second crossing over the Severn? In view of the complacency of his Department, will he not resist any application to transfer responsibility for the bridge from his Department to the Welsh Office? Would that not lead to a greater awareness in Wales of the tragedy that would occur if anything went wrong with the bridge?

Mr. Ridley: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that I fully recognise the interests of Wales. I shall always put them first in ensuring that there is an adequate crossing over the Severn. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman insists on questioning the validity of the present bridge, he should remember that it would take at least 10 years to plan and build a new crossing. Therefore, it is vital that the present bridge be strengthened and operated to permit the maximum amount of traffic to cross. The extent to which it is possible to make the crossing safe beyond doubt and able to cope with foreseen traffic can help to determine not only the timing but the character and capacity of any second crossing. I repeal that I stand ready to issue instructions to begin the building of a second crossing whenever it proves to be needed.

Mr. Mark Robinson: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will agree that his announcement today of the easing of restrictions will be welcomed by many people and businesses throughout south Wales. The recent controversy has done a great deal of harm to attempts to attract new industry into the region. Will my right hon. Friend give an assurance that, for the longer term, he will do everything in his power to ensure that the Severn bridge link between England and south Wales will continue and that the delays that we have experienced over the past few weeks will at some stage become a thing of the past?

Mr. Ridley: The present restriction should not result in anything but occasional disruption of traffic. That would mainly be an accident or an incident on the bridge. I sincerely believe that I can find improved methods of traffic control which will speed up the traffic on the bridge and that, by strengthening, it will carry whatever load is required.
As soon as I am ready with the answers to all those questions, I shall make a further statement that will, I hope, give confidence that the crossing will be able to serve the needs of industry in south Wales. If there is any doubt about that, there will be a second crossing at an appropriate time. We do ourselves a disservice if we question the existing crossing without reason.

Mr. Roy Hughes: Does not the Secretary of State realise that, however much he might try to hide and camouflage it, the Mott, Hay and Anderson report just will not go away? Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that the bridge is the economic lifeline of south Wales? Is he aware that, while we need adequate safety precautions and essential repairs to the bridge, the basic and urgent need is for the Government to draw up plans for a second crossing?

Mr. Ridley: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, the Mott, Hay and Anderson report, which he quoted, has gone away. That shows the unwisdom of quoting partially from documents that have not yet been agreed. Mott, Hay and Anderson agreed with what I have announced today, and for that reason I have been able to lift the restrictions. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's point. I have made it abundantly clear that I give the highest priority to the maintenance of this vital link between Wales and England.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Is it not clear that the exploitation of alarm and despondency by Opposition Members, for partisan reasons, has done far


more harm to the interests of the Welsh economy than would have been done by a more sober approach to the problem? Is it not a fact that the bridge is sound and safe, but necessarily of limited capacity, and that, looking forward to the next century, we must envisage a crossing with a larger capacity? Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that studies will be put in hand as soon as possible to assess both the need for and the viability of a second crossing?

Mr. Ridley: I counsel the House not to mix politics and safety. The bridge is perfectly capable of taking the load with the restrictions that remain after my statement and will be so for many years. I repeat to my hon. Friend my undertaking that if, in the course of the work on the strengthening measures, which we shall be carrying out quickly, it appears to us prudent to initiate studies into a second crossing, that will be done. If my conclusion is that that is not necessary, the House will want me to make the best of the good crossing that will be there.

Mr. Alex Carlile: In view of the catastrophe that has befallen Wales in the past four years from the Government's economic policy, what proposals do they have for providing financial aid to south Wales as a result of the reduction in the status of the Severn bridge from motorway to "hoot and pray lane", particularly with the stockpiling of lorries at one toll booth?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on both counts. If he insists on talking down the bridge in that way, he will be doing a further disservice to the economy of south Wales. The bridge is a four-lane road. It will take that traffic, except in the circumstances of congestion caused by a jam. It is a good link.

Mr. Donald Coleman: Despite the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, is he aware that the recent exchanges initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes)—I compliment him on the part that he has played in the matter — revealed that there is concern throughout south Wales about the importance of a crossing of the river Severn to the economy of south Wales? Is he further aware that it is not partisan to say that a second crossing is necessary? Will he consider the need to complete the "missing link" to the area, the A465, the completion of which would help the economy of south Wales to prosper?

Mr. Ridley: The road to which the hon. Gentleman referred does not arise on the statement. He should be reassured by what I said — that this vital link to the south Wales coast will be maintained for the benefit of travellers. I am acutely aware of its importance and have said that, if anything makes me feel that it will be inadequate, studies will be set in hand for a second crossing. Equally, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that if our conclusion is that it remains adequate, there is no point in having a second crossing.

Mr. Stefan Terlezki: I am sure that the industries in south Wales will be greatly relieved by my right hon. Friend's statement on this important issue. Is he aware that all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies accept that the bridge is the lifeline for industries not only in south Wales, but in Wales in general? Having a vested interest in tourism, I hope that

if, or when, the findings show that the bridge will not be viable or that the restriction to one lane must be maintained, my right hon. Friend will look closely and urgently into the possibility of a second crossing.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those observations and I agree with his sentiments. However, from midnight, it will not be restricted to one lane, except in exceptional circumstances. What is more, we are studying a programme for strengthening the bridge which might enable it to take greater loads than it was designed for. The trouble is that it was designed for certain loads and subsequently has proved to be inadequate in those terms. Therefore, we must keep the loads to what it will take. I am fully in agreement with my hon. Friend that, whatever the result of the studies, a viable and fast crossing must be provided across the Severn estuary.

Mr. Leo Abse: As the Mott, Hay and Anderson report is buried, according to the Secretary of State, why will he not now, on behalf of his bumbling Department, make an acknowledgement to Freeman Fox, whose proposals to monitor traffic he is apparently, though belatedly, substantially putting into action? Why does his Department have preconceived views which cause it, through the right hon. Gentleman, to abuse my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes), who is doing his duty, and, by implication, one of the finest bridge builders in the world, Freeman Fox? Why does the right hon. Gentleman permit his bumbling bureaucrats to carry on in this way?
Apart from considering the proposal that responsibility for the bridge should be transferred to the Secretary of State for Wales, will the right hon. Gentleman consider putting into effect the suggestion that has been urged for months by Opposition Members: that there should be a bridge master, such as other bridges of this kind throughout Europe have? That would end a system of segmented administration that has resulted in no profit and no co-ordination of any real character and with responsibility continuing to lie in the confused minds of the right hon. Gentleman's bureaucrats, who now have before them four engineers' reports, and who have still not come to a conclusion?
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman intend to make any comment about——

Hon. Members: Too long.

Mr. Speaker: Order. One long supplementary is enough.

Mr. Ridley: I do not intend to pick and choose between consulting engineers in the partial way in which the hon. Gentleman did. I waited for an agreed report between the consulting engineers. It was the quotation of remarks from an unagreed report that caused me to impose restrictions two and a half weeks ago. Now that we have an agreed report from consultants for the first time, it is right that I should follow their instructions as to what is necessary to restrict traffic. I have done that exactly to the letter. It is because of that that I am able to make this announcement, which I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would have realised was for the benefit of the Welsh economy.

Mr. John Ward: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of his hon. Friends congratulate him on the calm and objective way in which he has dealt with this major problem? Is he further aware that the worst possible


service he could have done to any part of Britain—the west of England or Wales—would have been to jump to ridiculous conclusions on half-baked and leaked reports? The whole House owes him a debt of gratitude for looking at the issue objectively, and we know that a solution will be coming in due course. I have every confidence in my right hon. Friend to make the right decision at that time.

Mr. Ridley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that comment. One must always put safety at the top of one's list of priorities. I repeat my assurance that this crossing must be maintained for the benefit of travellers.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the right hon. Gentleman remember that there is a report about a Severn tunnel? Will that be given consideration? How often do 50 mph gales occur in the area of the Severn bridge? Is he aware that those of us who use that bridge frequently have the impression that gales of that magnitude occur regularly? Does that mean that the restrictions will be imposed often? Will the right hon. Gentleman also be less complacent than he has been in recent weeks, bearing in mind that it took a question to the Prime Minister on Tuesday to twist his arm to get him to come to the House today to make a statement about the Severn bridge?

Mr. Ridley: I have looked at the preliminary views about a tunnel instead of a bridge, and it seems that it would be much more expensive than building another bridge. However, if the matter is studied in depth, we should get a firmer and more up-to-date answer on that.
I am told that winds of the violence I mentioned occur every two or three years on average. It is not only the strength of the wind, but the direction from which it comes. I do not think it is a hazard that will frequently trouble travellers.
I reject the hon. Gentleman's statement that I was shy to come to the House with a statement, as his right hon. and hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench will be aware.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell: Has the right hon. Gentleman looked carefully at the report of the Select Committee, of which I was a member? Is he aware that members of that Committee went to the bridge, went underneath it and saw that weldings that were giving way were being replaced by re-bolting, giving cause for some public alarm? Is it his intention in his new post—we shall become acquainted because of his new responsibilities, apart from our artistic acquaintanceship — to look at the bridge for himself? If so, will he be going through the trapholes—doing it the hard way—so that he may satisfy himself on the issue, in addition to looking at the myriad of sometimes conflicting reports?

Mr. Ridley: I said that I did not wish to pick and choose between various firms of consulting engineers. I shall not include the hon. Gentleman as one of those. It is better that I act on agreed professional advice of the highest calibre, though I am interested in what members of the Select Committee feel about the subject. Ultimately, with safety being the issue at stake, I must rely on the best advice I can get.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Is the Secretary of State's real motive to make up for all the damage that the Conservatives have done to British Rail in the last four years by encouraging people to use the bridge? May I commend to him a scheme to avoid the

bunching of heavy vehicles? Abolishing tolls for eastbound traffic and doubling tolls for westbound traffic should, in the short term, ensure not only much the same revenue to the Government, but that there were no stationary heavy vehicles on the bridge.

Mr. Ridley: If the hon. Gentleman really believes his first comment, he must also explain why I have lifted restrictions to the extent that I have done this afternoon. I thank him for his suggestion about the tolls, although that would, of course, require a little more than a quick decision by me. It is one of the suggestions that I shall consider in my urgent quest to get better traffic management and thereby increase the flow across the bridge.

Mr. Ron Davies: Does the Secretary of State realise that his statement this afternoon, that the restrictions will continue and that the bridge needs to be strengthened, is bound to perpetuate the uncertainty that hangs over the future of the bridge? Does he accept that a firm statement today of his determination to press for a second crossing would be a major boost to optimism in the valleys of south Wales and to industry and employment and would do much to dispel the uncertainty that now stalks south Wales as a result of his dismal performance in this regard?

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman may not have heard me say in my statement that lane restrictions would be raised from midnight tonight. If he has the interests of his constituents at heart, he will understand that that is the reassurance that he sought for the people of the valleys and that I agree is vital. Now that I have given it, the hon. Gentleman should have the good grace to acknowledge it.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that there is a long-standing problem with the crossing of the Severn, that during the past five years—perhaps an unhappy coinciding of events during this Government's period of office — there have been considerable delays on the bridge, and that the bridge can only just cope with the present level of economic activity in Wales? In view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer's statement this afternoon, in which he said that he hopes the boom is round the corner, does the Minister accept that any increase in economic productivity will lead to enormous pressures on the bridge? In view of the long lead time that is needed for a second crossing, will his Department immediately commission a feasibility study into the Severn barrage, in particular, instead of a tunnel or an alternative bridge crossing? May I add that the money is available, because the Gwent county council told me, as the Member of the European Parliament for South-East Wales, that the Department of Transport or the Welsh Office sat on its application for Common Market money to carry out a feasibility study.

Mr. Ridley: The hon. Gentleman will surely agree that the first thing to do is to make an assessment and take a decision about the strengthening that is necessary to carry the required traffic. If the bridge cannot be strengthened to carry that future traffic, I have said that we shall start a feasibility study into another bridge. The second bridge is related to the strengthening that can be done to the existing bridge and the traffic control that can be instituted to make the flow greater. Those three matters should be studied together. The answer to one should not be sought before the answers to the others are found.

Mr. Barry Jones: I thank the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House for having met our request that a statement should be made to the House. However, I hope that he will withdraw his unjust statement about my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes). Does the right hon. Gentleman accept the need for at least joint ministerial responsibility with the Welsh Office, bearing in mind that we are discussing the most important industrial artery to Wales? Does he further accept that people in Wales will be angry and disappointed tonight at the lack of a decision to build a second crossing—either a bridge or a tunnel? There are widespread fears that vital industrial development and investment have been delayed and lost. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the Welsh economy would receive a massive psychological boost if the Government had the courage and wisdom to sanction a second crossing?

Mr. Ridley: I resent the implication that, because I am responsible for the bridge, I do not give it the same priority and importance as would my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, were it his responsibility. There is no difference between us. We work together closely in considering these matters. I do not believe that the red herring of transferring responsibility would make any difference to the crossing. I have replied endlessly to the hon. Gentleman's questions and made it clear that if the bridge can be strengthened to carry the necessary traffic, it will be strengthened. If that cannot be done, we shall have to undertake studies into a second crossing. I need time to study those possibilities. It will not take very long. As soon as I have reached a conclusion, I will make another statement.

Hon. Members: How long?

Mr. Barry Jones: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10——

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that, after the long exchange of questions that we have had, that would be somewhat of an abuse of the procedures of the House, although I cannot stop him.

Policy Studies Institute (Report)

Mr. Alfred Dubs: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This concerns a matter that I mentioned in questions to the Leader of the House earlier this afternoon. I raise it, Mr. Speaker, because of your oft-stated wish to protect hon. Members against the Executive. It concerns a report by the Policy Studies Institute, commissioned by the police commissioner, which, in answer to a parliamentary question on 4 November, the Home Secretary said he would place in the Library on 18 November. That followed my request that the report be made available before the Second Reading of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. However, the report was not made available in time for Second Reading. Nor was it available this morning. I understand that it is to be made available at a press conference tomorrow afternoon.
The report is fundamental to discussions that took place in Committee this morning. Although the report is not available to hon. Members, and will not be available until tomorrow afternoon or later, it has been made available, albeit embargoed, both to the media and—this is more significant—to a variety of outside organisations. As the Home Secretary is the police authority for London, I do not understand why he sees fit to permit either his officials or the commissioner to make a report available to outside bodies when it is not available to Members of Parliament. At the very least, it is a discourtesy to hon. Members. Furthermore, it makes for muddled, confused and unsatisfactory proceedings in the Standing Committee. I ask your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on how to prevent a recurrence of such events.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Dubs). I agree with him that it is a discourtesy to hon. Members. As a general principle, I believe that the House should be the first to receive reports, before they are given to the press. However, the hon. Member heard the Leader of the House answer his question this afternoon on this matter, and he will have heard him say that it was not a Government report and that the right hon. Gentleman had no control over the way in which it was used. I have no doubt that those who are responsible for its distribution will have taken note of what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it really your considered opinion that reports should be given to hon. Members before they go to the press? Some of us are in favour of the embargo system whereby the Lobby has reports 48 hours beforehand, thus avoiding a repetition of the disaster with the Franks report—the one example of what you say—which the press got at the same time as Parliament. The press could not read it properly and reached instant conclusions that were completely distorted. Is there not a great deal to be said for the embargo system?

Mr. Speaker: I do not want to get involved in a great argument about this matter. The embargo system is of long and time-honoured usage. I intended to imply that hon. Members do take great exception—certainly I took great exception when I was a Back Bencher—to reading a report in newspapers before the information is given to the House.

The Army

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lang.]

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): I am glad to open the first of our three debates on the individual services. In doing so, I first pay a warm tribute to my predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). My right hon. Friend was Minister of State for the Armed Forces for two years, including the whole of the Falklands conflict and its immediate aftermath. During his period in office he worked unstintingly and to good effect for all three services, and he is remembered both by them and by the Department with great respect and warm regard.
In the past five months it has been a great pleasure and privilege to see much of the Army at first hand. I hasten to add that, as we are all fervent tri-service Ministers now, I have seen much of the other two services as well. Here in Great Britain, in Northern Ireland, E AOR, Gibraltar, Cyprus and Beirut, and in Ascension and the Falklands, I have found the Army in good heart and in good shape, and outstandingly expert and professional. We are indeed exceedingly fortunate to have an Army of exceptional calibre.
The kernel of the Army is its people—the skills, the spirit and the commitment of the men and women who serve in it. Even in this technological age, it is the personal qualities and motivation of the individual soldier that are likely to be of decisive importance in a conflict—as the Falklands campaign demonstrated so vividly. No commander and no Government can afford to discount the human factor.
The present Government, unlike their predecessor, in implementing the recommendations on pay of the Armed Forces Pay Review Body in full, have done a good job for the service. I believe that maintaining proper levels of pay has been quite as relevant as the level of unemployment in reducing the rate at which people leave the Army. Since 1979, those leaving at the end of an engagement have decreased by nearly a third, and the number of soldiers who exercise the right to purchase their discharge has decreased by nearly three quarters. The Government have undoubtedly ensured that a career in the Army, and indeed in all three services, is significantly more attractive and more satisfying than it was four years ago.
Despite our preoccupation with events outside the European theatre, the Army's most important operational commitment remains, and will remain. in Germany. I visited BAOR in both July and September, and found 1(BR)Corps extremely impressive. I am delighted that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House have also visited the corps recently.
The corps' reorganisation announced in the 1981 defence review is now almost complete, and has significantly enhanced its combat effectiveness. The two forward armoured divisions are now all Regular, and each is of three, rather than two, armoured brigades, thus improving the corps' ability to deal with any attack after only a short warning. The whole corps now comprises three armoured divisions in BAOR with a fourth division—2 Infantry Division—based in the United Kingdom in peacetime, which can reinforce very rapidly. The Army is confident that it has now achieved pretty well the

optimum balance, within the BAOR manpower figure of 55,000, between its in-place units in Germany and its dedicated reinforcements.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear recently, the Government's considered judgment is that present force levels on the central front must be maintained, in accordance with our Brussels treaty commitment, which has been observed since 1955. We cannot afford to do otherwise. The forward defence of West Germany is the forward defence of the United Kingdom. In the Federal Republic, the British Army protects a vital 65 km section of the central front, on one of the possible main thrust lines of Warsaw pact forces. The ability to reinforce BAOR rapidly, which we definitely have, is certainly of great value, but rapid reinforcement can never be an adequate substitute for strong in-place forces, particularly when the Warsaw pact possesses the capability to mount an attack with only a very short warning time.
Nothing in the current deployment of Warsaw pact ground forces in eastern Europe and in the western part of the Soviet Union, or in the continuing strengthening of the capabilities of those forces, warrants a reduction in the strength of Britain's contribution to NATO's in-place forces on the central front which represent such an essential element of deterrence. We cannot shuffle our share of the burden of collective defence on to our other allies. Nor can we expect others to adhere to their present commitments on the central front, and indeed in other NATO areas, if we are unwilling to do so ourselves. Our commitment to the present level of our forces on the central front therefore remains. Not merely do we intend to maintain BAOR's present strength, but we are in the process of making a number of extremely important improvements to its equipment and operational capabilities.
Last week I announced our decision to deploy one of the brigades of the Third Armoured Division in BAOR—6 Brigade—in an airmobile anti-tank role for a trial period. The first phase of the trial began on 1 November and will last for just over a year. This will enable the brigade—now known as 6 Airmobile Brigade and not be confused with 5 Airborne Brigade which I shall come to later—to participate in exercise Lionheart next year, our major reinforcement exercise, in the airmobile role.
During the trial period, mobility for leading elements of the brigade will be provided by helicopters, while the rest of the brigade will be equipped to deploy rapidly by road. The brigade's role will be to move swiftly to counter any breakthrough or to meet an armoured thrust developing from a new direction. For this purpose, it will be equipped with an increased number of Milan anti-tank guided weapons, and with Lynx anti-tank helicopters equipped with Tow and with Blowpipe anti-aircraft missiles. This trial will significantly widen the tactical options open to the corps.
I am glad to say that BAOR's major re-equipment programme has made, and is making, substantial progress. To keep pace with the ever-increasing size and quality of Warsaw pact armoured forces we must continue to place a high priority on improving our armour and anti-armour capabilities. Over the next few years four BAOR regiments will be equipped with Challenger, the first British Army tank to benefit from the greatly increased protection provided by Chobham armour. The first


Challenger tanks are now in BAOR on troop trials — I recently had the pleasure of driving one, happily without incident.
We also have a programme of improvements which will keep both Challenger and Chieftain in the forefront of armoured warfare technology. This programme includes a new 120mm high pressure gun specially designed for the new generation of anti-tank ammunition as well as improvements to fire control systems and to gearboxes and engines. To improve our night-fighting capability—the importance of which was so well demonstrated in the Falklands last year—thermal imaging sights are being developed to fit both types of tank.
In the anti-armour role, the anti-tank guided missiles — Swingfire and Milan — are also being fitted with thermal imaging night sights which will enable them to be used more effectively both at night and in day-time conditions of poor visibility. In collaboration with our French and German allies, an improved warhead is being developed for Milan. We plan also to maintain the lethality and performance of both Swingfire and Tow to keep abreast of Warsaw pact improvements by fitting improved warheads. Work is also under way on a new generation of anti-tank guided weapons that are due to enter service in the 1990s. Our anti-armour defence is therefore improving very significantly.
Infantry mobility will be improved by the introduction of the Saxon — the new wheeled armoured personnel carrier for the infantry earmarked to reinforce BAOR. Production orders have been placed with GKN Sankey for the first 50 vehicles. In the late 1980s our forward troops in BAOR will be equipped with the new tracked armoured personnel carrier, the MCV80, the development programme for which is now proceeding satisfactorily.
The infantry will also soon be obtaining its new small arms for the 1980s — the SA80 weapons — which are planned to be in service in 1985. A light assault rifle will provide the basic personal weapon and a light support weapon will replace the existing general purpose machine gun as the basic infantry section weapon. Both the new weapons are being manufactured to the new NATO small arms calibre of 5·56mm rather than the present 7·62mm and both the weapons themselves and their ammunition will be significantly lighter than their predecessors.
The Warsaw Pact's artillery capability is already formidable and continues to increase. The planned introduction of the multiple launch rocket system to replace the existing 175mm M107 gun will represent a major improvement for BAOR. The system is being developed in collaboration with the United States, France and Germany, and should be in service by about the middle of this decade.
The development trials for the Royal Artillery's new self-propelled gun, SP70, are due to be completed over the next two years. Production will commence on successful completion of these trials. The SP70 is planned to enter service at the end of the decade and will provide a great advance on BAOR's current artillery. The SP70 will have longer range, an automatic shell-handling system, much greater mobility, a sophisticated sighting system and improved protection for the gun crew.
With the high mobility of Warsaw pact forces, target location is as important to BAOR's artillery as its firepower. Detailed development work is therefore being

carried out on two complementary ways of improving our artillery's target acquisition capability and our battlefield surveillance. One is through the use of remotely piloted vehicles and the other is through the use of airborne radars in manned aircraft. A decision on which systems to choose for full development and production is likely to be made in the next two years and we are aiming for an in-service date of the late 1980s for this very important improvement to our artillery's capability.
Another vitally important equipment area for BAOR is its integral air defence weapons provided by Rapier and Blowpipe. Major improvement programmes are under way to maintain the effectiveness of these missiles in what will be the very sophisticated electronic warfare environment which must be expected in Europe. By the end of next year, all towed Rapier units will have increased immunity to electronic counter-measures, enhanced surveillance radar and improved reliability. Within the next year or two, improvements to the Blowpipe missile and aiming unit should also be in service. In addition, BAOR's present air defence will be increased with four batteries of tracked Rapier for which production orders have been placed. The first battery will be brought into service next year. The mobility and faster speed of reaction of tracked Rapier will be of great value in the forward areas in particular.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: Before the Minister leaves the subject of Rapier, will he say something about the proposed £160 million contract in relation to Rapiers and Spain, with special reference to the possibility of end user certificates, in which some of us do not believe? In other words, they may not go to Spain at all.

Mr. Stanley: I shall not allow myself to be drawn on that negotiation. They are continuing discussions and it would not be helpful to go into contractual details at this stage.
To these improvements in weapons must be added the equally important improvements in two other areas that are critical to operational effectiveness: ammunition stocks and what is known as C3 — command, control and communications.
The importance of high quality command, control and communications equipment cannot be overstressed. Military history is littered with instances of well-equipped and sometimes numerically superior forces coming to grief because of a failure of communications. Over the next few years BAOR will greatly benefit from the introduction of three important new C3 systems — Ptarmigan, Wavell and BATES.
The first production deliveries of Ptarmigan, the new trunk communication network for 1(BR) Corps, are expected this year. When the system is fully into service later in the decade, it will represent a quantum jump in secure and survivable communictions within the corps and within the central front generally.
The prototype of Wavell, which is an automated command and control system permitting rapid handling of tactical intelligence and other data, has undergone successful trials with 1(BR) Corps and the first production contract has now been placed.
The battlefield artillery target engagement system, affectionately known as BATES, is expected to enter service in the late 1980s. It is a computer-based system for artillery targeting which will enable our artillery to concentrate fire on the highest priority targets.
All these improvements to BAOR's C3 capability are of the greatest operational importance.
Lastly in relation to BAOR there is the question of war stocks. A weapon is, of course, only as good as the ammunition available to fire it. We are therefore continuing to improve BAOR's stocks of both ammunition and missiles. Besides an increased buy of Milan and Swingfire anti-tank missiles, we have ordered additional Blowpipe and Rapier missiles for our low level air defence systems. We are also providing additional conventional ammunition for our artillery and our tanks.
As well as increasing our missile and ammunition stocks we are also increasing the amount of reserve equipment available. Additional Rapiers have already been ordered and the introduction of Challenger will allow the provision of dedicated reserve Chieftain tanks for 1(BR) Corps.
For the future, to ensure that ammunition is readily availabe as and where required, we are in the midst of contructing a series of new ammunition storage sites for BAOR much further forward than those that we have at present. Lastly, as well as ammunition and equipment, we have increased our fuel reserves in Germany for all BAOR's vehicles and armour.
All this adds up to major improvements in BAOR's conventional deterrence. I shall not pretend that BAOR currently has every item of equipment that it would like, or in the exact time scale or quantity that it would regard as ideal.
I strongly maintain, however, that BAOR's present and prospective effectiveness is very much greater than it was four years ago, and that this has and would only have been achieved as a result of the far higher priority given to defence by the present Government than by our predecessors.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Before my hon. Friend leaves the subject of BAOR, will he say something about the NBC capability of our forces in BAOR, bearing in mind the growing concern about the chemical offensive capability of the Warsaw Pact and the fact that although our forces have the best equipment and have achieved a great deal when wearing it they have no offensive capability of their own?

Mr. Stanley: My hon. Friend is entirely justified to stress the way in which, although the West has for many years restrained any construction of offensive chemical capabilities, the Soviet Union has substantially increased its capability. That is one of the clearest examples of the dangers of one-sided disarmament.
Vitally important though the British Army's contribution is on the central front, it is also making a very important contribution to the maintenance of peace and security in other parts of the world. I should like to refer to at least some of these, starting with the Falklands.
We are all familiar with the topography of the Falklands from our television screens, but only when one sees with one's own eyes the coverless and totally exposed nature of the ground along 2 Para's approach to Goose Green and only when one walks the route that 3 Para took up Mount Longdon and the Scots Guards took up Mount Tumbledown can one fully appreciate the immense skill and personal bravery required to take those objectives. Those Falklands battlefields themselves say more than words can tell about the British Army and it is a very humbling experience to see them.
The last year in the Falklands has been one of military consolidation and major improvement in living and working conditions. The Army has now created there a remarkably efficient and reasonably comfortable base out of virtually nothing. Those serving there live mainly in complexes of fairly up-market Portakabin type accommodation, which I can assure the House has all mod cons. The food is excellent, the all-important mail is efficient and frequent and the training is unique. Nowhere else in the world can the Army carry out major exercises with both the Navy and the Air Force and with live firing by all three services.
I could mention a number of our Army units in the Falklands, but I should like to refer to just one—the explosive and ordnance disposal teams of the Royal Engineers. Since the end of hostilities in the Falklands, they have been carrying out the enormous and dangerous task of clearing the islands of left-over ordnance. Indeed, since June 1982 they have removed some 2 million potentially dangerous items from the battlefields.
The personal danger to which these men have been exposed in carrying out this work is self-evident. Regrettably, since the end of hostilities one sapper has been killed and a further three have been seriously injured, including this summer the major in command of the EOD team in the Falklands who was maimed by an Argentine mine
The dangers are still very much there, particularly from mines. We have therefore had to call a halt for the time being to any further attempts at minefield clearance. I am sure that the House will agree that the safety of our men must be the paramount consideration, and that the House will want to join me in paying a tribute to the remarkable bravery and skill of the EOD teams of the Royal Engineers.

Sir Antony Buck: Those hon. Members who have had the privilege of going to the Falklands and seeing this operation will want to endorse every word that the Minister has said. The Minister is probably right when he says that the operation should cease and the areas that remain contaminated with mines should be wired off and left. Have we any answer to the plastiic mines that were laid indiscriminately and with great irresponsibility by the Argentines?

Mr. Stanley: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. We do not have a complete answer to the plastic mine. We have been carrying out some intensive research in that area, and that is one of the main reasons why we consider that it would be irresponsible in present peace-time circumstances to try to continue with the minefield clearance programme.
I should now like to turn to Beirut, where the job of our small contingent of Queen's Dragoon Guards has been, I am afraid, as hazardous as that of the Royal Engineers' EOD teams.
Some right hon. and hon. Members have expressed doubt whether our contingent should be in Beirut at all. There is no doubt at all that if there had been no multinational force there would have been no chance of a ceasefire in Beirut, there would have been no opening of negotiations at Geneva and by now Lebanon may well have been on the way to ceasing to be an independent state.
But the price of MNF involvement has of course been to put at risk the soldiers of the multinational force. The


Government are acutely aware of that risk — the risks from inaccurate shells and stray bullets, and the risk from those bent on committing terrorism and suicide simultaneously.
I have seen a little of the risks at first hand, and the House can be assured that there are few issues that have exercised those of us on the Government Bench more over the past few months than the security of our contingent in Beirut. Those risks remain—indeed, there is nowhere in Beirut that is free of risk.
I should, however, like the House to be aware of how our contingent is regarded in Beirut itself. That it is very highly regarded by the people of Beirut is abundantly confirmed by the friendly reaction of people of all ages and all religious groupings to our Ferrets passing them on patrol through the city. That it is highly regarded by the political leaders in the Lebanon — again from all religious groupings—could not have been demonstrated more clearly by the fact that it was the British contingent of the MNF that was requested to provide the security force for the ceasefire committee in Beirut.
That is a great tribute to our contingent, which is discharging one of the most difficult international peacekeeping tasks ever attempted, and has conducted itself in a quite outstanding fashion.
After Beirut, the greatest area of potential risk for British soldiers remains Northern Ireland. It is, however, a reflection of the gradual improvement in the security situation that has been achieved through the courage and skill of both the Army and the Royal Ulster Constabulary that it has been possible for us gradually to reduce the number of Regular Army battalions that we have in Northern Ireland.
We now have only eight Regular battalions in the Province, six on two-year tours and only two on four and half month roulement tours. That is the lowest total for over 13 years and a far cry from the 26 battalions deployed in 1972. Our eight Regular battalions are, of course, supplemented by what are currently 11 battalions of the UDR. The men and women of the UDR run unique risks. Unlike those serving in our Regular battalions they are part of, and live in, the community. They and their families are, therefore, at risk from the moment they join. Since 1970 136 serving members of the UDR have been murdered as a result of terrorist action.
I am delighted that there has been such a ready response to the UDR benevolent fund appeal. We cannot speak too highly of the personal bravery and the devotion to duty of the men and the women who serve in the UDR.
Finally, I want to refer to three other aspects of the Army which bear directly on its capabilities and its effectiveness — the public expenditure available to defence, the Army's capability outside the NATO area, and the Army's reserves.
The provision for defence expenditure in 1984–85 within the totals just announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is £17·008 million. Our plans for 1985–86 and 1986–87 will be announced in the public expenditure White Paper in the usual way.
In cash terms the provision for 1984–85 is some £1,300 million more than the current provision for this year and, on the assumptions used about the future movement of pay and prices, allows for real growth year-on-year of about 3·5 per cent. excluding Falklands expenditure.
As a proportion of both GDP and per capita the United Kingdom defence budget is now second only to that of the United States among our major allies. That amply demonstrates that we are fulfilling our commitment to the electorate in successive elections to strengthen Britain's defences.

Mr. Edward Leigh: Would my hon. Friend take this opportunity to allay any fears that the Government's commitment to the 3 per cent. increase in real terms per year to 1986 is at risk or that the Army's finances might be at risk after that date?

Mr. Stanley: Today we can cover only the firm figures for the year 1984–85. As I have said, that will produce an increase in real terms of about 3·5 per cent. before the additional Falklands money is taken into account. I cannot go beyond the next financial year. We must wait until the publication of the public expenditure White Paper.
I now want to touch on the important improvements that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced during our visit to the out of area brigade—5 Brigade—at Aldershot on Monday. Since the end of the Falklands campaign we have already added an armoured reconnaissance regiment, an artillery regiment, an Army air corps squadron and logistic support units to 5 Brigade's strength.
We are now adding another 300 troops to the strength of the brigade bringing it to a total of over 4,500 men. These additions will comprise an air defence troop equipped with the Blowpipe, as well as further signals, medical, transport and logistic units.
We also intend to improve our assault parachute capability by providing additional parachute training for some elements of the brigade's artillery, air defence, logistic and support units, bringing the total number of parachute-trained members of the brigade up to 1,800. These improvements mean that the brigade can now be accurately described as an airborne formation and it has been rechristened 5 Airborne Brigade. I am sure this will please many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and not least my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, West (Mr. Spicer).

Mr. Jim Spicer: It would be wrong for me to extend the thanks of the airborne forces to my hon. Friend the Minister today, but I believe that the Government are to be congratulated by Members on both sides of the House on taking a step which is long overdue. I wish to tell the House how grateful all hon. Members have been for the support shown by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister since the early days of Kuwasi. At that moment the decision was made in the hearts and minds of many Conservative Members that we had to return to our previous position with 16 Parachute Brigade. We are very grateful.

Mr. Stanley: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend.
As hon. Members will be well aware, the Government have placed great emphasis on the expansion of our reserve forces. We are increasing the strength of the Territorial Army significantly to 86,000 by the end of the decade. This expansion is well under way and the TA has already expanded from 59,300 in 1979 to more than 70,000 now. On 1 April this year, the three home defence yeomanry regiments were given a new role in light reconnaissance, and we have also formed this year two TA airfield damage repair squadrons at Leuchars and Marham.
Next year, a further two airfield damage repair squadrons will be formed at Honington and Coningsby, and fourth companies established for the 3rd Volunteer Battalion of the Royal Regiment of Wales and the 3rd Battalion of the 51st Highland Volunteers. The TA has also received much new equipment including Blowpipe, the 105 mm light gun and Clansman radio equipment.
In September last year we set up a two-year pilot scheme to assess the feasibility of raising a home service force whose role would be to provide guards for certain key points in times of tension or war. I am pleased to tell the House that, although the scheme has been running for only just over a year, the signs are that it is definitely a success. There is considerable scope to expand the home service force and we are now examining how to do so. The expanded home service force will be a valuable addition to our home defence capabilities.
Our reserves, the members of the TA, and those now forming the embryo of the home service force are a quite vital — that word is no exaggeration—element of the British Army. I am extremely grateful to our reservists and territorials for their time, enthusiasm and commitment.
The British people have every reason to be extremely proud of their Army. In those parts of the world that I have mentioned, and in others such as Gibraltar, Cyprus, Hong Kong, Brunei, Belize and the 35 or so countries where we are carrying out military training programmes, the British Army stands for skill, reliability and trust. No army is a finer standard bearer for its country overseas.
As a one-time, but now distinctly rusty, historian, I always take a close look at the battle honour standards that regiments proudly display, whether in our capital city here in London or far away in the Portakabin mess of the Kings Own Border Regiment in Goose Green. Those standards are a vivid reminder of 300 years of unrivalled military achievement. I am in no doubt that the British Army today is fully worthy of its illustrious past.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the Minister in his felicitous words about the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) who, unfortunately, is not in his place. While he was Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the Opposition found him a doughty and robust opponent. Although we disagreed on most issues, especially nuclear, we found him courteous, civil and helpful on matters in which we had a mutual interest and concern.
I extend the Opposition's tribute to the British Army for its work on behalf of this House and the British people. The tasks that the Army is given come about as a result of decisions taken in the House by a democratically elected Government. We must always maintain that position. Equally, it is not for the Army to question the directions of a democratically elected Government.
However, in fixing the Army's role and giving it its tasks, we have a duty to ensure that it has the best means to carry out that role and those tasks. Therefore, any comments that I may make about the role or the tasks facing the British Army are criticisms not of the men carrying out the decisions and directions of the Government, but, perhaps, the role placed upon the Army by the Government.
The Minister slid rather shyly over the problems that the Government and his Department will face as a result of the Chancellor's statement today. Table 2(1) on page 22

shows that the 1984–85 estimated expenditure was to have been £17,288 million. That has been cut to £17,010 million. About £250 million has been knocked off the defence estimate. We must know exactly where those cuts will fall.
In answer to an intervention by the hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), the Minister said that the NATO commitment would be maintained. However, he was not prepared to say whether it would be maintained until 1986. He said that we must wait for the public expenditure White Paper. He did not explain what a 3·5 per cent. growth in real terms would mean. Is it according to the assumption upon which the Chancellor has based his White Paper, or does it relate to defence inflation, which is about twice the retail price index rate? What is the meaning of an addition for the Falklands costs? Will the £684 million to which the Chancellor referred be met wholly, or must other cuts be made in the defence budget to meet that cost? I hope that the Minster will answer those questions when he replies.
The Minister spoke about the role of the Territorial Army and the home service force. We have ail been impressed by the organisation of the TA and its ability to fulfil a role in reinforcing parts of BAOR. It has been an impressive exercise — logistically difficult — which has been carried out well. What is happening about the other tasks that have been given to the TA, and at what rate will its re-equipment programme take place? Will it suffer from the cuts announced this afternoon?
I hope that the Minister can provide me with a profile of the home service force. He says that the pilot schemes have been successful. Perhaps I could have an age profile, service profile, experience profile and some indication of the training. Static defence is one of the most difficult forms of defence to maintain, especially for a volunteer force.
We do not always know what to choose as the most important topic in an Army debate. Should it be equipment, services or the new Challenger tank that the Minister has been driving? As he was speaking I wondered whether he was the driver of the tank that outstripped all the armoured personnel carriers. Will the promise of that new tank be met equally by the new Saxon and other APCs? Perhaps it was a little careless of the Minister to give away a major secret to the Russian foe.
During the past four or five years there has been an enormous increase of the Army's tasks. We must, therefore, study carefully the strain placed upon its men and equipment. Its men serve in areas from the Falklands to Norway, it has NATO and other important commitments. Some of those are relics of our imperial past. Others are new commitments accepted by the Government.
Our NATO commitment involves a United Kingdom base, the British Army of the Rhine and a permanent training establishment in Canada. Our commitment in Europe involves the Berlin Brigade, which is not officially part of NATO, Northern Ireland, a dual commitment in Cyprus and Gibraltar. In the far east we have commitments in Brunei and Hong Kong. In South America we have a commitment in Belize. Training has been done in the United States, Canada, Kenya, Brunei, Australia, Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Fiji in the past year. Although that training shows a desire to be friendly with


our former colonies, which are now members of the Commonwealth, it represents a strain that is being put upon the Army.
As to the Falklands, I am conscious of many of the facts that the Minister pointed out. He mentioned the difficulty of the terrain and the enormous courage of the men who had to capture such difficult places as Goose Green. However, we should consider the Select Committee's criticisms of the long-term effects of maintaining the Falklands garrison. The Department's reply to the Select Committee's report failed to face three important questions. First, how long will we maintain Fortress Falklands? Secondly, how much will it cost? The cost will increase. Thirdly, why are we now there?
Although we could provide some form of answer to each of those questions, the most difficult question is: how long? In that respect, the initiative lies to a great extent with the Government. A new democratic Government is about to take office in Argentina. That provides an opportunity that the Government should have taken earlier when they successfully regained the islands. We might have shown some magnamity. A diplomatic initiative would be appreciated by our many friends. We should try to reach some form of agreement with the Argentines. By using intermediaries we might be able to unlock valuable resources in the form of troops and weaponry to defend these islands and to help NATO.
One of our largest problems with the Falklands resulting from the failure of our policy there is that we are still re-supplying from Ascension Island. We have not yet found one South American Government to give us the regular and proper facilities that are necessary to maintain our garrison in the Falklands. Maintaining the Falklands garrison will put a continuing strain on the Army and the rest of our defence commitment. How long, therefore, will we maintain Fortress Falklands?
We should be aware that it costs £684 million a year to maintain the Falklands garrison. We should consider what that could mean in terms of new equipment and better use of resources. We should bear that sum in mind when we are faced with the possibility of cuts in defence spending.
We have a dual commitment in Cyprus. The United Nations Force in Cyprus—UNFICyp—acts as a peace-keeping force between the Greeks and the Turks on the island. The Government have properly refused to recognise the independence of northern Cyprus. But will that declaration put an increased strain on our forces which form part of the United Nations force there? Can we expect the United Nations to ask us to enlarge our commitment? Is there likely to be a heightening of the tension between the two parts of the island? That would put extra pressure on our troops. Although I hope that none of what I have described happens, we should be aware of the possibility. When our troops pursue a peace-keeping role, they are put under tremendous strain.
We have another responsibility in Cyprus — the sovereign bases. Although the bases are not assigned to NATO, they are vital to its interests on the southern flank and for the supply of our beleaguered troops in Beirut—the Queen's Dragoon Guards. The way in which the Buccaneers flew non-stop to Cyprus to be available to our troops on the ground and show solidarity was impressive. However, we must ask: what is the role of our troops as a peace-keeping force in the Lebanon?
We must distinguish carefully between the three types of peace-keeping force in which we are involved: first, the United Nations force in Cyprus; secondly, a small multinational force with observers in the Sinai; and, thirdly, the peace-keeping force in the Lebanon. When our troops are in the blue berets of the United Nations in Cyprus they are accepted by everyone. Our force in Sinai has been accepted by the conflicting parties—Egypt and Israel.
Our troops in Beirut, however, are in different circumstances. They are part of a Western multi-national force which supports one main faction. They are Western and Christian and are likely to be identified with the Phalangists and therefore treated as being inimical to various Moslem factions. They are in an extremely difficult position. That they have been able to maintain some impartiality says a great deal for the discipline of the troops involved. We should pay tribute to them for that. The deliberate incursions and terrorist atrocities suffered by American and French troops shows that our troops are in difficult circumstances. When the newspapers are full of discussions about the Americans being likely to retaliate against terrorist forces, one wonders about the safety of our troops. Do 100 troops form a viable force? Might they not get sucked into the conflict, thus forcing the Government to become more involved in what is going on there?
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition tried to explain those anxieties to the Prime Minister a fortnight ago, but she failed to see the point. Political circumstances over which the Government and our forces have no control make our troops extremely vulnerable. The distinction between the three types of peace-keeping force that I have described is extremely important.
Belize, another major trouble spot, is also an exposed place in which we have a considerable number of troops. There was considerable anxiety in Belize at reports that the Prime Minster was trying to find ways of disengaging our commitment there at her meeting in Washington before the Grenada incident. It seems to me that, in view of what is happening in Central America and in Grenada, the British Army can play an important role in maintaining peace in Belize—not as a threat to anyone, but as a positive deterrent force in the event of any attempt to upset the situation there. That means that the British Army is likely to be there for a long time during this period of considerable Central American unrest. We need to know more specifically what the Government's intentions are with reference to the garrison if it is to stay in Belize as long as the people of Belize want it. If we are not prepared to commit ourselves publicly to a clearer undertaking to the Government of Belize, uncertainty will be created, and that is not in the interests either of that state or of Central America.
The Minister referred to 5 Brigade and the outside of area commitment. I am not sure whether the Secretary of State read his news release on that matter. I understand that he was called back to be informed about the arrival of cruise missiles at Greenham common in the same manner as the Prime Minister was informed about the invasion of Grenada—after the event.

Mr. Stanley: The hon. Gentleman's last comment is the product of imagination. It is untrue.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister ought to know better than that. The Secretary of State's confusion and distress


gave support to the Opposition's view—the view that is now commonly held—that the Secretary of State was not informed until after the missiles and the warheads had arrived. The British public do not accept what the hon. Gentleman has just said.
The 5th Brigade is now to be termed an airborne brigade. Although I appreciate the argument for an out of area capability where we have national interests, I am not sure where we can expect to have an out of area interest that will not involve some of our allies. I understand that the Government regard the Falklands exercise, brilliant as it was, as a one-off. Where else are our interests likely to be involved in a way that would justify our using 4,500 men or launching a parachute assault in order to maintain those interests?
The main areas of tension — the Gulf, the middle east, the Horn of Africa and perhaps parts of South Africa—are areas in which we would not be prepared to act, except in conjunction with other countries. Furthermore, the Minster of State has made it clear today that we would not have the proper logistic and other support to maintain a parachute assault in those areas for any length of time. We would need support from a host nation or a third nation. The idea of acting in our own interests alone does not bear proper examination. We are afraid that the Government have not given enough thought to the realities of an incident in which we would be asked to operate with the number of men and the commitment that the Government have in mind.
With the Minister of State and other Government and Opposition Members, I was privileged recently to visit BAOR and observe operation Eternal Triangle. We were grateful for the attention paid to us and the briefings that we received from everyone from the general officer commanding downwards. My only criticism of the arrangements would be that we spent only three days there rather than four, as we had expected, and we therefore did not have sufficient time to talk to the troops. That was not the fault of those who made the arrangements. Such things are likely to happen in the organisation of an important exercise. However, I believe that all members of the party were sorry not to have an opportunity for significant talks with the ordinary PBI. I hope that those who visit BAOR in future will have such an opportunity.
Generally speaking, Members of Parliament, either as individuals or as members of all-party or party groups, have been well catered for by those in the Minister's Department who are responsible for arranging visits. Perhaps I should not mention the gentleman concerned — he might be embarrassed or not relish a political compliment—but Mr. Ken Blake has been very helpful to hon. Members on both sides of the House. We appreciate his courtesy and hard work.
The hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) referred to the ABC capability of our troops in Germany, and I listened to what the Minister said in reply. It would be very foolish and dangerous to experiment in any way with the introduction of biological or chemical warfare. It is to the credit of the West that—although there are rumours about it in the United States—we have not succumbed to the temptation of experimenting again in that area. We should not do so. It would create a further escalation. However, other countries are envious of the amount of work that we have done to ensure that, even if we do not have such weapons, our troops are protected against them. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether

there has been a complete issue of ABC clothing in BAOR and whether there are sufficient stocks for the rest of the British Army based in the United Kingdom.
The Opposition are worried not so much about the political or defence role assigned to BAOR as about the fact that our strategy for that area relies too heavily and too early on the use of nuclear weapons. I shall quote from an article in The Times today which I believe will be quoted furiously in the next few weeks. I understand that Cardinal Hume said:
Britain … however, must extricate itself from its reliance on nuclear weapons.
We should do so in BAOR, which relies on the early use of nuclear artillery if it seems that we are about to be overrun by the Russians. The strange communications systems that are said to exist for getting permission to use the weapons creates confusion in the minds of those who seek to operate them and consternation both in the host nation and among people in Britain and elsewhere in NATO. It is felt that once those weapons have been used, there will be no going back. There is a fear that if there were a danger of the weapons being seized by the enemy, the Army would remember the phrase "Use them or lose them." If BAOR or the NATO forces in general on the Rhine were to use those weapons, Lord Carver's words would be relevant. In his Arms Control Council lecture which was reported in The Times on 10 November, he said:
It would be criminally irresponsible for any Western leader to initiate a nuclear strike on the assumption that the Soviet Union either would not answer back in kind or would do so to such a limited degree that we could regard it as acceptable within whatever were our war aims.
If that is Lord Carver's attitude, it is one that we must bear in mind. We are not talking about a great deal of penetration when we remember that the range of many of these nuclear artillery shells is only 20 kilometres.
Although he is not in his place, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) made the point, which I think is generally accepted throughout the country, that we should have nuclear weapon-free zones. A nuclear weapon-free zone of well over 20 kilometres of the Oder-Neisse line would be an important step forward towards nuclear disarmament in those areas. Lord Carver further suggests that we should quickly, if not immediately, get rid of our nuclear artillery weapons.
The main matter that concerns the Opposition, if we are to maintain our non-nuclear posture, is whether it is possible to have weapons systems which can deal with the perceived threat of a Russian attack across the central plain of Germany. We feel that such a position has now been reached with the modern development of delivery systems and microtechnology. The surrender of tactical nuclear weapons and their replacement with conventional weapons is now a real possibility. That is something which we must face if we are to avoid the risks to which Lord Carver has drawn attention and if the Opposition and country are to disengage from the nuclear alternatives. The examples of developments in technologies in the late 1980s and 1990s, which have been drawn to our attention, show that that can be achieved.
Many hon. Members will have seen the results of a survey on defence technology in The Economist. I do not intend to spend time on the various propositions which are now part of the general literature on the subject.
If we are to replace our nuclear weapons with modern conventional systems, the Labour party must face the fact


that it will be expensive. We should abolish Trident and other nuclear weapons, but the savings on Trident would not necessarily meet the cost of its replacement with the sophisticated and expensive weapons that are suggested as the means of avoiding reliance on nuclear weapons.
If we are to do that, we shall have to have the improved Lance and Wasp and the Avco Skeet. We shall need an improved communications system. They will all cost money. People who demonstrate against nuclear weapons, the members of my party who seek a return to conventional weapons, Conservative Members and those who support Her Majesty's Government's present policies have to face the fact that the cost of defence will increase. We must decide whether that is what we want. If the Opposition are to have a viable defence policy, we must study this problem carefully. If we are to get rid of the nuclear deterrent, play our part in NATO and accept our responsibilites under the Brussels treaty for the defence of central Europe, which is my party's policy laid down at Labour party conferences, just as much as getting rid of the nuclear option, we must realise that it is likely to be costly. That is something to which all of us, particularly the Labour party, must turn our minds.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: I was extremely nervous earlier this afternoon at the presence of so many of my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Chamber who were clearly awaiting my maiden speech as well as the autumn economic statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. They are now detained elsewhere on important matters and their judgment is to be much commended.
I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to address the House for the first time during the Army debate. It is not the first time that I have sat at the feet of my hon. Friend the Minister, as in a previous incarnation I have listened to other discourses from him.
The constituency of Crawley, which I have the honour to represent, was previously served by my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Hordern)—whose economic expertise I shall not be able to match but whose service to the constituency I will hope to emulate—and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Renton) from whom I have inherited a splendid rural area.
Crawley is a most interesting constituency. It represents a complete cross secton of British life today. It includes Gatwick airport where, among others, that most excellent example of free enterprise British Caledonian makes its home and where also I am lucky to have the headquarters of the British Airports Authority. I am sure that my hon. Friends will be delighted to welcome shortly that most successful institution to the cleansing and more competitive rigours of the free market place.
The Crawley industrial estate contains a remarkable galaxy of successful and innovative industrial companies which have come through the recession with flying colours and which are now set fair for a period of expansion. We have an excellent work force, many of whom are highly skilled, operating in a spirit of determination and harmony—those two great keys to the door of industrial success.
The new town of Crawley is a pleasant and active community. We have a large Asian population which plays an important role in our affairs and which is a great contributor to the undoubted success of the town.
I am also lucky enough to have a beautiful rural area which retains much of the glory of the Sussex countryside. In short, I have a constituency which has sufficient breadth in its diversity for me to be able to seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to intervene in practically any subject raised in the House, in the interest of those whom I represent.
Our debate takes place against a background of some considerable confusion in world affairs. The correlation of defence and foreign policy is most intimate. Our defence policy is, by definition, crucial to the pursuit of our foreign policy. There are several avenues by which we pursue our overseas interests—those that we undertake on our own account; those that we develop in conjunction with our European partners; and those within the context of the Alliance. Whichever way we seek to pursue our objective, our defence and foreign policies are credible only if they stand astride three principles. We need a strong, democratic and united society with an economy to match. We need a sound and effective military deterrent, conventional and nuclear, and, perhaps most importantly of all, a strategy for the future and a practical and realistic policy to pursue.
We have proved beyond any measure of doubt that we are prepared to deter and defend our interests by force of arms under certain clear circumstances. At the crucial moment, we were found lacking neither in the skills and courage of our service personnel nor in the internal strength of the nation.
For the future, we need to develop highly flexible defence policies, not just so that our people may have confidence in us, but because when we discuss these matters with our many friends in the rest of the world they must know that we have a series of definitive and consistent objectives in which they may safely repose their confidence, and under whose umbrella they may wish to shelter their interests. In the paper "The Way Forward" that the Secretary of State for Defence presented to Parliament in June 1981, the Government made a most important point. They said:
To go on simply as before, or with all plans and aspirations unabated, is not an option; change is necessary. The Government has taken hard decisions. These reflect our resolve to give defence the resources Britain's security demands; but with equal resolve to see that these resources, which the nation cannot spare without much penalty elsewhere, are put to work in accordance with realistic, unsentimental and up-to-date judgments of what will be most relevant and effective in future years.
In that context, and although the Government have done just that, we still need to adjust to circumstances to provide Britain with what it needs when it needs it, both to protect our people and to support our foreign policy.
The question of matching policies to resources is of fundamental importance in the fashioning of defence and foreign policy, just as it is in the making of domestic policy. The interdependence of those two policies was well summed up by the representative of a middle east country who commented on our contribution to the multinational force in Lebanon. He said:
Every scout car flying the Union Jack is an ambassador for your country.
I realise that we are asking the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office to undertake an almost impossible task.


They must predict constantly the Army 's requirements during the next 10 or 15 years and how the Army should be organised and equipped. Army planners must, therefore, consider all the potential aspects of conflict and foreign policy, which could require military involvement. We cannot ignore the fact that a military force, especially the Army, could and does make a considerable contribution to the dynamism and success of our foreign policy by its physical presence.
I am considering not only the Army's peacekeeping role, but the crucial role of military assistance in a broad area ranging from mere advice to providing contract officers, to training teams and to drafting a responsible and judicious programme of arms sales, all of which must be designed to help our friends to help themselves.
From experience and looking out over the future, I cannot help but believe that our military resources would be better spread across a realistic range of limited and, therefore, winnable conflicts. We cannot have flexible response and forward defence quite simply because we cannot afford both.
I took to heart the point made by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the commitment of our forces to the British Army of the Rhine. But we must review seriously again and again the role of the British forces in Germany. If we are to retain a flexibility in our foreign policy which is capable of being backed up by our defence policy, we must accept a small reduction in that force. That is not to opt out of our historic role but merely to shift some of our capacity so that in peace time we can reassure our allies, and in time of tension we can reinforce them wholeheartedly. At present we have too many British eggs in the German basket. That is a major problem which Army planners must face sooner rather than later. I do not envy them their task.
May I thank right hon. and hon. Members for the courtesy and consideration with which they have listened to this maiden offering?

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames), who made a thoughtful contribution to the debate. As with his noble and illustrious father, I am sure that we shall disagree with him from time to time, but we shall always respect him. I am sure that, since he is an ex-cavalry man, we shall hear from him regularly in defence debates, and the House will look forward to his contributions.
This is the first time that I have spoken in a defence debate in this Parliament, so for the benefit of new Members I put it firmly on the record that I am not, and never have been, a supporter of unilateral disarmament, whether of nuclear or conventional arms. However, I have many friends who are sincere in their beliefs and in their support of the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament, but, much as I respect the depth and strength of their beliefs, we agree to disagree in a very civilised way.
Before anyone tries to hark back to 9 June, I shall quote from the election address which all my electors received. They gave me a healthy majority and sent me here as the first Member of Parliament for the new constituency of Newcastle upon Tyne, North. I shall not bore the House by quoting all of the address—which by any standards was excellent—but I shall quote the part about defence. It stated:

The awful prospect of a nuclear holocaust appals every thinking person. We must, in concert with our allies, work towards multilateral disarmament nuclear and non-nuclear. We simply cannot afford to embark on the Trident missile programme costed at 1981 prices at £10,000 million, which, with the enormous escalation of sophisticated weapons systems, I know from my experience, will cost no less than 50 per cent. more, long before the system is ready for use. The only way in which we could afford such a programme would be to deny the British Army of the Rhine the weapons they would need should the unthinkable war in Europe happen.
The House will realise from that quotation that, during the election campaign, the Labour party would have failed in its duty to the nation had it not reminded the people of the abject horror of war, nuclear or conventional. Contrary to much that will be said this evening before 10 o'clock, especially by Conservative Members, the Labour party is not pacifist. The Labour party believes as much as does the Conservative party that the first duty of any Government is the defence of the realm. Indeed, support for the NATO Alliance is no less strong in the Labour party now than it was when Ernest Bevin firmly committed the nation to defence by collective security through membership of the Alliance more than 30 years ago. Successive Labour party conferences have supported continued membership and rejected overwhelmingly calls to withdraw, and alongside such decisions they have logically supported multilateral disarmament. That continues to be the party's stance.
For many years I have criticised the Soviet Union for its deployment of SS20 missiles at a rate of about four a month. If the Soviet Union had wished to make an immense contribution to world peace, it would have offered to stop further deployment of SS20s in exchange for a pledge that there would be no deployment of cruise missiles. The Soviets still have the opportunity to do that if they wish. We have to live together or die together. There is no disputing that statement.
I am not impressed by the argument that there must be parity. It is arrant nonsense to deploy such a case. It does not matter that the West has X-plus warheads against the East with X-minus warheads, or vice versa. Whatever the figures, it is undeniable that we have more than sufficient nuclear weapons to destroy East and West many times over. In the name of humanity, a halt must be called before we get too far along the road to the installation of cruise, which will make verification much more difficult in the future, and thus put a block on the road to progress to an agreement that ultimately must come between East and West.
I have had the good fortune to have a fine wife who produced a son and a daughter for us, and they in their turn have given us three lovely granddaughters and a grandson. I dearly want my grandchildren, and those of other people, to grow up in the secure knowledge that they have a peaceful future to look forward to. In that respect, I specifically make a plea to President Reagan, to put the future of all our grandchildren before any consideration of electoral advantage next year. I am sure that more than a suspicion is felt by many hon. Members that some of the recent happenings that have originated from the President have been more out of self-interest for the end of next year than for the peace of the world.
I return to the charge that I have made in Army debates in the past — the matter of equal miseries. I am delighted to see the new Minister in his place, and I have talked with him before about this matter. I am sure that there will be no difference between what he finds and what


I found years ago on the sixth floor in the Ministry of Defence building, in the exercise that takes place at least once a year, and, depending on how often the Chancellor introduces a supplementary Budget, perhaps two or three times a year. I have no doubt that the sixth floor of the Ministry of Defence building will see much to-ing and fro-ing to decide how the misery, announced today by the Chancellor, is to be shared out.
The core of my complaint is that, although the Army comprises more than half of the manpower of Her Majesty's armed forces, its share of the budget seldom exceeds about one third of defence spending. Without a doubt—this is an undeniable statement—we have a first-class weapons technology. British industry has been second to none in this, but the re-equipment programme is the only place where the Army can find any savings when the Chancellor wields the axe.
I should have been out of order if I had done so, but I almost applauded some of the splendid statements that the Minister made. However, I made the same sort of announcements, equally splendidly, over four years ago when I was Minister responsible for the Army. We are still waiting, and the Minister is saying the same things that I said four, five or six years ago from the Dispatch Box about the quality and quantity of the brand new equipment that the Army would get.
This takes me back to my election address. We cannot afford the £1,000 million at 1981 costs for Trident and at the same time have a well-equipped British Army of the Rhine. Let not any hon. Member or anybody outside the House forget where the sharp end is. It is on the north German plain. I do not believe that we shall have a nuclear war. I do not envisage a war in Europe at all. We should all be better off without a war anywhere in any shape or form. If there is to be a major disturbance in Europe, it will be in Germany. That is why we keep a British Army of the Rhine.
That is why I say, as I have said before, let us forget our delusions of grandeur as a nuclear power. I am not interested in the Prime Minister being able to walk tall with the President of France, saying "We are on all fours with the great nuclear powers", because that does not impress me. We should forget that, because we cannot afford it. We should commit ourselves instead to providing the best soldiers in the world with the best equipment, which they so richly deserve.
How right the Minister was when he said that well-equipped armies had been beaten because of defects in communications systems. He went on to tell us that the Army is to get Ptarmigan this year. If my memory serves me, it must be at least four years since I made a similar statement. The hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) will remember pre-1974 when he made a somewhat similar statement about Ptarmigan. I am delighted to hear that the first contract has been let and we shall get the system in the late 1980s. That is about on programme because we have been saying that since the late 1970s. However, I am delighted that the communications equipment is being brought up to date, and I say that particularly as an ex-Royal Signals man.
It is right that, in spite of the fact that Belize has its independence, we keep forces there to guarantee the integrity of that country against what is without any shadow of doubt a bestial dictatorship in Guatemala. It is

difficult to maintain forces within an independent state, and difficult to justify. From my vists to the Army in Belize, I always think of that country as the best example of a multiracial society and good democracy. I should hate to see that democracy crushed by the military of Guatemala. Before we take the decision to pull out of Belize, I hope that we shall make it clear to that country that we want a United Nations force to guarantee its frontiers against Guatemala.
The role of the Army in Northern Ireland continues to be a mjaor one, although I am delighted to see that there is nothing like the number of soldiers committed there as have been there recently. We cannot overpraise our soldiers there for the way in which they conduct themeselves. The self-restraint of the British Army in Northern Ireland in most difficult circumstances is second to none. That must be one of the most awful postings for a soldier to have, to be among his own kith and kin and not to know which side he is on half the time.
I should like the Minister to make special mention of what is a battalion of the British Army, although it does not always get the credit for being so, the Ulster Defence Regiment. The UDR suffers more than any of the mainland battalions. Its members have to do their normal work to earn their daily bread, as it were, and then go on duty at nights and weekends. They are prime targets all the time. That is why every hon. Member would express the hope that there will be a continuing political dialogue that may produce the solution that has evaded us for so long.
Again, a posting to the Falklands is not comfortable. I have yet to meet a serving soldier who has enjoyed his stay there. Before too long I hope the Prime Minister will realise that there must be negotiations to produce a solution that will enable us to stop that dreadful drain on resources, which we cannot afford.
On the subject of the Lebanon, I want to underline the words of wisdom spoken by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who compared the United Nations peacekeeping forces with the multinational peacekeeping forces. There is a vast difference between them. The blue beret of the United Nations gives soldiers a respectability that they do not have in a multinational force. We all hope that the negotiations that are taking place will bring relief to that miserable country so that our lads and those of other nations can be withdrawn.
Our soldiers and airmen are doing a superb job in Cyprus in the thin blue line of the United Nations that has kept the peace there for so many years. I hope that the Turkish UDI will not precipitate a crisis where the lives of the peacekeepers will be put at risk.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North was wise to utter words of caution on the announcement about the parachute brigade or 5 Airborne Brigade. I only wish that we had had the parachute capability when Smith declared independence in Rhodesia because it would have been the right answer to have dropped an airborne division on Salisbury. There was a friendly host country that would have taken in an infantry division in preparation for the drop of an airborne divison. Unfortunately, we did not have the capability then. One might well ask why we need it now. I hope that we have not got any visions of grandeur about a presence east of Suez again, where we might need an airborne brigade.
I was delighted to hear the Minister say that the Territorial Army had increased in strength by 11,000 in the


past four years. Nothing delights me more than this increase in a force which is, without doubt, the best value for money in the defence budget. I say, good luck to every TA soldier and every future TA man.

Sir Antony Buck: I welcome the opportunity of intervening in the debate for a variety or reasons. I hope the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) will forgive me if I do not follow him through the whole of his speech. I do not doubt for one moment his devotion to the Army. However, I think he is misguided in his attitude to Trident and on the nuclear issue. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement, who will wind up, will no doubt be able to deal with that. My understanding is that at no stage will the cost of Trident be much more than 5 per cent. of the total defence budget and 8 per cent. of:he procurement budget. So any idea that it will drain us of resources is misguided.
I do not think that a unilateral gesture by us in giving up a nuclear capacity that we have had virtually since nuclear arms were invented would be other than counter-productive in getting what we all want—progress with the START talks and the mutual and balanced force reduction talks. The unilateralists are the enemies of the multilateralists. I do not deny the sincerity of many of those who campaign for unilateral nuclear disarmament but they are totally misguided. It is interesting to have followed the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, as I have done in past defence debates.
It is also pleasant to participate in a debate in which we have had such a splendid opening by my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. We look forward with anticipation to the winding up speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Lee). It was good, too, to have the bonus of a maiden speech of such distinction from my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames)—I found it throughly interesting. It was ably delivered, as one would expect from someone from such a political stable. We look forward to hearing him many times in the future. When one comes here for the first time, as I did over 20 years ago, one notes particularly the hon. Members who are kind. The father of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley was particularly kind to me as a new boy when I was very nervous. I expect that he, with his political antecedents, is less nervous than l was. I am glad that such a political pedigree as his is being so ably continued.
I am pleased to participate in the debate for these parliamentary reasons as well as for other reasons. I have the privilege of representing Colchester, North. Until recently my constituency covered all of Colchester. In the new constituency there is the headquarters of the eastern area, so my military connection is maintained. Over the past 20 years and more this has brought me into close touch with the Army. There are usually two major units in Colchester doing a two-year tour. Often in the past they have gone off on roulement tours for four months to Northern Ireland. I have visited units in Northern Ireland on 14 occasions since the troubles. I am not a particularly superstitious person but I was glad to get the thirteenth visit over. The next one, which I hope to make soon, will be the fifteenth.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) were right to pay a fulsome

tribute to the performance of our troops in Northern Ireland. Over many years they have sustained a burden that could not have been sustained by any other armed forces in the world with such great fortitude and restraint. One realises this when one has been along the Falls road in an armoured personnel carrier and seen small children throwing stones, which does not stop even when the soldiers get back to barracks. When one sees and hears bomb blasts close at hand one realises the enormous burdens that our troops have sustained over such a period. In his winding-up speech my hon. Friend may wish to deal in more detail with Northern Ireland.
I welcome what was said by the Front Bench earlier about the new method of deployment in the Province whereby there are to be fewer battalions, only two, I believe, on the roulement four-month plus unaccompanied tours and a larger number on longer, accompanied tours. That is a definite improvement. Not only is it good for the troops but it is good for the gathering of intelligence. The difficulty about having troops there for four-month tours is that, just as they are getting to know the area and the dramatis personae, they are moved away. Larger tours are very much to be welcomed. I repeat that our troops have done a magnificent job in Northern Ireland. To have the chance of saying that is another reason why I am glad to participate in the debate.
I hope that the House will forgive me making a few domestic points. It is a privilege to have in my constituency the military corrective training centre. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) has a more intimate knowledge of it than me. He is a prominent figure in the Labour party, although he has demoted himself to the Back Benches today. The right hon. Gentleman did time at the MCTC as a guardsman. However, I think that we would all agree that he did much good as a Minister when he was responsible for matters in Northern Ireland. That was probably because of his Colchester training in the MCTC, or perhaps it was because of the visit that he and I made to Israel later. However, he was an admirable Minister.
The MCTC is at long last to be rebuilt. It is almost the last hutted camp in the country. The foundations are now being laid for the new MCTC. I pay tribute to it. Of all the young men there who are returned to their units only a small number offend again. The training there is sensible, and it is an admirably run establishment. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) visited it with me when the Armed Forces disciplinary Bill was being considered. The present commandant, Colonel Illingworth, carries on the traditions started by many others, including Colonel Paul, who is now our garrison adjutant. They do an admirable job, as my hon. Friend can corroborate.
I pay a heartfelt and fulsome tribute to what our troops do in Northern Ireland, and in my constituency, where we have admirable town-garrison relations. The local paper was once kind enough to say,
Member of Parliament commends garrison-town relationship.
A Scottish regiment was there for a short while. The neighbouring headline in the paper was:
Jocks do over Bull and Bush".
However, it is only rarely that there is real trouble with the military. Only occasionally do we find spirits that are too high.
I am worried about a matter that was mentioned by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North. He wondered whether we were straining our resources and whether we needed more personnel to undertake our wide commitment. The scale of our forces is set out in the White Paper, with which we are familiar. I have a word of caution about an army of our size, which, in international terms, is not all that big. Smaller countries than ours have conscription, and larger forces. There are about 160,000 people in the Army, maintaining the garrison in the BAOR and garrisons throughout the world. Our commitment is graphically illustrated in the White Paper. There is a danger of spreading our resources too thinly throughout the world.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will refer to our small force in the Lebanon. Figures vary. I have obtained estimates from my hon. Friend's Department, which put it at from 90 to 100. I am worried about the troops, which are so isolated. They have been fortunate because of Britain's high prestige, but I am worried about the position of such a small garrison. It is good to see the Buccaneers and air support in Cyprus, but I am still worried about those 90 personnel.

Mr. Robert Atkins: Both my hon. and learned Friend and I were on a recent delegation to Cyprus, where we saw the support operation for the British contingent in the MNF. Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that, while our force in Beirut is lonely and isolated, the support in terms of supplies and engineering capability and so on from Cyprus is superb?

Sir Antony Buck: I agree with my hon. Friend. Our air power in Cyprus is an assurance. However, it is a little difficult to know how it would be applied. We have the powerful Buccaneers and so on in Cyprus. However, In the Lebanon a block of flats is occupied by one force and the next is occupied by another force. Buccaneers screaming overhead may have a general salutary effect, but it is difficult to know how they would be deployed. Perhaps the Minister will tell me later. I am concerned about the isolation of the small force of 90 stuck in the Lebanon.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley, in his maiden speech, wondered whether it was appropriate for us to have such a commitment to BAOR—the full 55,000 commitment. I used to have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's view, but having visited BAOR I am not sure whether, if we withdrew or had a smaller commitment, the "hole" would be properly filled by our allies. Also, there would not be an immediate saving in bringing our forces back from BAOR. There would not be a real saving to the Exchequer. There would be some saving across the exchanges, but that is all.
The Minister should consider whether the Germans are making a sufficient contribution to defence. We keep our forces in BAOR without a contribution from them, when there was one in the past. We are not under the same constitutional constraints as the Germans, in that we operate extensively outside the NATO area. There used to be an offset agreement, but it is long gone. It might be appropriate for the Germans to make a contribution to our costs.
When the Conservative Government first came to office, the morale of our forces was low. If the hon.

Member for Kingston upon Hull, North had had his way, I do not think that he would have allowed the morale of the armed forces to get so low under the Labour Administration. It was largely a matter of pay, and there was a great outflow of key personnel in the Army, particularly what may be described as the middle management, the senior non-commissioned officers, sergeant-majors, and captains and lieutenants of long standing. They left behind people with more limited Army experience. We all know how much the Army and the other forces are dependent on that level of experience and expertise. It was flowing out of the Army. The first thing that we did on coming to office was to deal with the pay issue. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will state what the time schedule is likely to be for the Armed Forces Pay Review Body to report. Pay is now, again, becoming a matter of concern not only in the Army but in the rest of the services, including the Navy. I visited one of Her Majesty's ships yesterday, and found that to be so.
It is not correct to say, as some political commentators have, that defence does not matter in political terms. That is a myth. In every branch of the party there are many retired Army, Navy and Air Force officers or senior NCOs. They would not work for us at election time if they did not realise that we are a party that believes that the first duty of any Government is to see that the country is properly protected — of course in the context of the Alliance. I am pretty convinced that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North has a similar belief. The fact that he is so lonesome on the Oppposition Benches shows that there is not a strong conviction on that point in much of his party. I do not charge him with lack of concern.

Mr. McNamara: It merely shows the confidence that my party colleagues repose in me.

Sir Antony Buck: If the hon. Gentleman believes that, he will believe anything. It is sad that he does not have at least a Front Bench colleague with him. We are glad to have some on our side. We in the Conservative party do not have a monopoly of concern about matters of defence but I sometimes wish that Opposition Members would concede that they do not have a monopoly of care and compassion on social issues.
We have had an interesting debate and I look forward to the remainder of it. It is important that the Government keep the Army at a sensible level, not only because we must keep our country properly defended but because, if we are to achieve progress with mutual and balanced force reductions, we can do so only by keeping our forces strong as a basis for sensible negotiations in the future.

7.10 p

Mr. John Cartwright: It is a particular pleasure to follow the typically good humoured comments of the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) because, having represented Woolwich for the past nine years, my experience is in many ways similar to his in terms of regular contact with the armed forces, and I should certainly like to endorse what he and other hon. Members have said about the contribution made by our service men in Northern Ireland, a contribution that is too often forgotten. From the talks I have had with some of the service men involved, I get the impression that the strains they face are sometimes almost intolerable. We owe a great debt to the young men who carry out that thankless task on our behalf.
I hope that the House will forgive me if I begin with the regular constituency issue of the housing of ex-service men. There are a great many married quarters in my constituency, too many of which, unfortunately, stand empty for weeks and months on end. Yet when service men reach the end of their engagements they find that they are pressured none too gently into giving up their married quarters rapidly. Although some of them have had the common sense to register a housing application with a local authority often years before the end of their period of engagement, they still find when they come out of the forces that housing is not available for them or, if it is available, that it is of a quality that is inappropriate for someone who has spent years in the service of his country. The problem has been regularly referred to in the House and in my experience considerable personal hardship is involved. A very much more sympathetic attitude is needed on the part of the Army authorities and local councils.

Dr. Alan Glyn: The real problem is that, once they have registered, the local authority is unwilling to give them priority in housing.

Mr. Cartwright: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I am asking not for priority but for service men to be given a fair crack of the whip in the quality of the housing that is offered to them. All too often they are treated as homeless and provided with the type of unattractive council housing that may be appropriate to homeless families in some circumstances but is certainly not appropriate to ex-service men.
In considering the role of our Army in particular and of our defence objectives in general, I should like to take up the issue on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) concluded his speech—the overriding need to reduce NATO dependence on nuclear weapons. The need is widely recognised not only by politicians but by military commanders. The need is regularly emphasised by General Rogers, Supreme Allied Commander, Europe. I wish to concentrate my remarks on two aspects of the issue: first, battlefield and short-range nuclear systems; and, secondly, the need to improve our conventional capability on the central front in Europe.
I have long felt that battlefield nuclear weapons are the most dangerous of all classes of nuclear weapons. I find the military case for the deployment of about 6,000 short-range nuclear warheads in the European theatre extremely dubious. The battlefield and short-range systems are physically deployed close to the area of potential conflict. They are extremely vulnerable to pre-emptive attack and therefore commanders will have the dreadful choice referred to by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North of either using them or losing them. In such a position it is clear that decisions on mating nuclear warheads with launchers would have to be made early in a conflict. Yet, given the need to get political agreement across 16 sovereign nations with 16 independent Governments, such agreements would not be easy to reach in a hurry. With that type of problem, I question whether these short-range systems represent a credible deterrent to the Soviet Union as there is now widespread agreement that, once we crossed that nuclear threshold in battlefield systems, tactical systems or short-range systems, it would lead inevitably to a strategic exchange.
There would be obvious military gains from removing battlefield nuclear weapons altogether. We have a number

of dual capable delivery systems, aircraft and artillery, which, if converted to a dedicated conventional role, would provide important assets to strengthening our front line conventional capability. We could also release service men tied up in guarding nuclear warheads for much more effective front line duty.
There would also be a political gain in rationalising our nuclear stockpile and removing the short-range nuclear system from Europe. It would show that NATO was not intent, as it is sometimes presented as being, on piling weapon system on weapon system in a crazy escalation of nuclear weapons. We could show that NATO was about a sensible and prudent modernisation of nuclear weapons. I believe that giving up the use of short-range battlefield nuclear systems would also highlight the idea that NATO was involved in a deliberate change of strategy, a strategy leading away from the automatic early use of nuclear weapons and towards a fall-back reserve position in which we saw nuclear weapons once again as weapons of absolute last resort. That step should be taken.
I was disappointed by the NATO decision to reduce the nuclear short-range stockpile in Europe by only 1,400 warheads over the next few years. That falls far short of what is needed. It will still leave 4,600 short-range warheads in the European theatre. Many of those to be withdrawn were obsolete; others will be withdrawn only to be stockpiled in the United States; and there are ominous signs that the United States Administration intend to press on with the modernisation of short-range nuclear systems. We hear, for example, of the use of the enhanced radiation warhead with the Lance missile. There are reports that new artillery shells with enhanced radiation capability are being designed in the United States.
I believe that last month's NATO decision will not enable the West to seize the political initiative which we should be trying to do in the current turmoil over the cruise and Pershing deployment. Nor will it remove the massive dangers inherent in battlefield nuclear weapons.
I should like to deal now with the question of conventional capability in central Europe. I noticed that the Minister, in introducing the debate, did not, as Ministers often do, give us the latest assessment of the conventional balance in Europe. It is in the defence White Paper and it makes depressing reading, whether one looks at the numbers of troops under arms, battle tanks, artillery pieces, anti-tank weapons or tactical aircraft. In all these key areas, the Warsaw pact has a considerable advantage, in some cases an advantage of more than two to one.
The White Paper sensibly reminds us that we do not necessarily need to match tank for tank or gun for gun, but I believe that the trends, including the improvement of Warsaw pact quality of equipment, make it impossible for us to go on rationalising away what is an ever widening gap. NATO's conventional weakness increases our dependence on the nuclear threat, with all the problems of credibility and appalling risks involved in resting on that nuclear deterrent.
In looking at improved conventional defence in Europe, we are not necessarily aiming at a conventional capacity sufficient to hold and defeat Warsaw pact ground troops and air forces indefinitely. We are simply searching for a capability sufficient to deny the Soviets a quick and easy victory in central Europe. That was put well by General Rogers in an interview in the summer, when he said:
What we are trying to do in Allied Command Europe is to provide for a conventional capacity by 1990 that has a reasonable


prospect of frustrating conventional attack by the other side. If we get to that position, and are perceived as being in that position, I think we'll deter the Soviets from attacking because if they attack and we're successful in frustrating it, they have two options: one is to withdraw and the other is to be the first to escalate to the use of theatre nuclear weapons.
That is the sort of strategy that NATO should be pursuing more powerfully.
Two very differing options have been discussed in the debate. One is the use of what the Americans increasingly call "emerging technologies" and the other is the more mundane but probably more important aspect of improving things such as ammunition stockpiles and reinforcement capability. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to some of the emerging technologies, and there is no doubt that the ability to strike deep behind Warsaw pact front lines with much greater accuracy, greater fire power and much increased range will be considerably improved as a result of the use of the new technologies that are rapidly becoming available.
But the resource implications of the new technologies are in many ways frightening. The European security study group on strengthening deterrence in Europe recently published a report and put the cost of using the new technolgy to create a credible conventional defence posture in Europe at an extra 10 to 30 billion dollars over the next decade, and we know that sophisticated weapons systems throughout the 1970s repeatedly overran their projected costs by very large margins indeed.
It seems clear that the new technology will be massively expensive. It will also raise the need for even more highly trained personnel at a time when demographic changes are reducing the number of potential service men available. Thus, as the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, North rightly reminded us, new technologies do not offer either a soft or a cheap option, and it may be that we would make more progress in the short term in improving our conventional capability by looking at more routine improvements. I was pleased in that respect to hear the Minister spend time on the question of ammunition storage. General Rogers had some trenchant remarks to make recently about that when he said:
What concerns me most is that we have failed to provide sufficient sustaining capacity — ammunition stocks, pre-positioned material to replace losses of equipment on the battlefield such as tanks and howitzers—to keep them fighting for a sufficient length of time. Under current conditions, if attacked conventionally, we will have to request the release of theatre nuclear weapons fairly quickly because of that lack of sustainability.
That was an interesting comment because I was a member of the Select Committee on Defence, the first report of which in 1980 was on that issue of ammunition storage in the central front. As the Minister may be aware, the Select Committee was not happy about what we thought was a leisurely programme of building ammunition storage places in the forward area of the central front. Nor were we happy about what we thought were extremely amateurish arrangements for transporting ammunition from the rear zones. I was pleased to hear the Minister say that those matters were being tackled, and I hope as a result that we shall not have those deficiencies.
The Select Committee also drew attention, on the issue of ammunition storage, to the differential stocks available to different national forces operating in the central front. Some of those forces seemed to have considerably less

ammunition available than even the British national forces. That caused us to make a similar comment to that made recently by General Rogers. We said in the Select Committee report of 1980 that a NATO commander
would have to plan for a period of conventional warfare no longer than that able to be sustained by the Corps with the lowest level of supplies. He might, therefore, be forced to recommend the premature introduction of tactical nuclear weapons into the battle.
The Select Committee strongly recommended that steps be taken to achieve NATO-wide agreement on ammunition expenditure rates and stock levels. The response of the Ministry of Defence to that recommendation was off-putting because it simply said:
In the end, stock levels are a matter for individual nations to decide upon.
Maybe that is true, but it is a worrying attitude if we are to approach these matters on a purely independent, separate, national basis. There are reports that NATO's stockpile of ammunition in the central front is still only sufficient for ten days' intensive combat. We cannot have a credible conventional defence if basic problems of that sort remain.
It is clear that the upgrading of our conventional defence to reduce dependence on nuclear weapons is not a soft or cheap option. It will require considerable investment. I applaud the Government's aims in this respect, but I am sceptical, like other hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, about their ability to achieve all the conventional improvements that are needed, in addition to meeting the continued costs of the Falklands exercise and Trident programme.
Faced with economic and financial constraints, something at some stage will have to be sacrificed. The position of my party is clear. We have supported and will go on supporting the NATO 3 per cent. per year growth in real terms provided that it is used for what it was intended, namely, the improvement of NATO's conventional capability. In our view, the priority, if there must be sacrifices, is clear. The priority should be the improvement of our conventional, non-nuclear defence.

Miss Janet Fookes: I shall be brief and confine my remarks to the topic of the British Army of the Rhine. I was one of the party mentioned by the Minister who recently visited BAOR and exercise Eternal Triangle. It was an eye-opener to see the professionalism and high morale that currently exists, and I support the Minister in his remarks on that subject.
I recall that such was not the case in the mid-1970s when last I visited Germany. Then there was considerable depression about rates of pay and, even more, about the stingy economies that were making it almost impossible to carry out proper training. Petrol, for example, was severely rationed. The contrast between then and now is remarkable and is a tribute to the realism and force behind this Government's commitment to the armed services. I also congratulate the Minister on his robust defence of BAOR and its role and his commitment that its strength will not fall below 55,000.
Here I gently take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). He made an excellent maiden speech and I congratulate him on it, but I thought that he showed a certain coolness towards BAOR and the importance of its role. He seemed to suggest that where we had many commitments and should be drawing back,


that might be one area at which we should look again. On the contrary, I regard the role of BAOR as of paramount importance in the defence of the United Kingdom itself, which must surely come first for all of us. Perhaps I may use a rather mundane analogy. If one regards the United Kingdom as the house, West Germany is the front garden. In my view, it is important to stop the would-be burglar in the front garden, rather than allow him to enter the house. It is not far from here to the inner German border, where the Communist regime begins. It is unfortunate that we do not have here the excellent maps and diagrams that are always presented to us at briefings by the Army or the armed services generally. They show just how close we are.
We were fortunate—if "fortunate" is the right term—to visit by helicopter two sections of the inner German border. It is a most chilling experience — even more chilling, I suggest, than the Berlin wall, which is frightening enough. When one sees the series of fences and obstacles that are placed between the free world and the Communist bloc, and considers that it extends the whole length of the country — some 1,400 kilometres — one begins to get a sense of reality. One refinement struck me as particularly poignant. The last fence was set back from the border, so that when people trying to escape from the East get past the dogs, mines, electrification and all the paraphernalia that one can see so clearly they can be shot as they stumble into what they might imagine to be Western territory. We were told by the frontier service that every year escapes are still attempted. A few of them are successful, but many people die in the attempt. We sometimes need that reminder when we consider our defence costs.
Among all the good news about the professionalism of our troops and the excellent new equipment which is there and coming in, which I applaud, one thing worried me. It was touched on by my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in an intervention in the Minister's speech. He referred to our entire lack of an offensive chemical capability—splendid military jargon for what I take to be nerve and other gases which can kill, disable or maim. It is not a pleasant subject. It evokes poignant memories for those who were involved in the first world war, when people were killed and crippled by them and their lives ruined. None the less, it remains true that, while we have no such capability, the Soviet Union has. That, I think, is a great weakness in our defence posture.
It is true, of course, that our men have excellent protective clothing. However, even that has its drawbacks. We were given a demonstration of what worn and how it is put on. It was most impressive, but it was clear that it slows up the troops who are wearing it and infinitely reduces their capacity to work for long periods.
Let us suppose the worst happens and an invasion by Soviet troops of West Germany seems to be occurring. It will be of the greatest importance to have our troops in peak condition, bearing in mind what can be thrown against them. It they have to wear this protective clothing, they will be slowed down. Worse still, that could bring about the use of nuclear weapons quicker. because, if the enemy cannot be held back, a point must come at which a decision has to be made whether nuclear weapons should be brought into use. All of us want to avoid that at all costs.
I ask the Minister, because he skated round the subject—that is understandable, since it arose in an

intervention—to consider whether we should have our own capability to act as a deterrent to the Soviet Union. I realise that that would be a highly unpopular political decision to have to make. It would require a remarkable degree of political courage and determination to bring it about, because it could certainly be misconstrued. None the less, I ask the Minister to consider the matter seriously.
In general terms, I consider that we have an excellent capability with our forces now in West Germany, hut, however good they are, with modern communications and the complications of working with NATO, political decisions will still be of the utmost importance. Above all, we need the political will to defend ourselves and the courage to make decisions that the military can then carry out. It was clear in the discussions that we had that the military are well aware of the need to work closely with the Government of the day, and with other Governments, and that they are completely reliant on that political will. I hope and believe that while this Government remain in office we need have no fear that there will be any lack of nerve or courage in such circumstances.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On his own merits I congratulate the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) on presenting a serious view, and using his maiden speech to consider a central issue. Like the hon. and learned Member for Colchester (Sir A. Buck), I was the recipient of considerable kindness from his father when he was Minister of Agriculture and a senior Minister, and also during the years when I was exiled to the indirectly elected European Parliament, at which he was this country's distinguished Commissioner. I was also—it dates me—a Member of the House when his grandfather used to wander in and sometimes sit in the seat that was his own below the Gangway.
I interrupted the Minister on the subject of Rapier. He said that he would not go into the subject. I understand that. However, the Minister of State, who has just walked into the Chamber, spoke on Radio 4 on the subject of Rapier. The conversation went like this.
Jeremy Harris: How big an obstacle is the continuing and often rather bitter dispute over Gibraltar, to a deal like this?
The Minister replied:
Well I don't think one could pretend that it's in any way helpful, but at the same time I think that they accept that if one wants to take a decision as fundamental as this, it oughtn't to be coloured by considerations of this sort.
Harris went on to ask the Minister:
Is it responsible to be trying to sell what you've described as very sophisticated systems to Spain, when many of these weapons would actually be deployed along Spain's Southern flank and very close to Gibraltar?
The Minister replied:
Well, if I can take the inference in your question, you have to remember that Spain is joining NATO, we hope that the referendum will confirm Spanish membership of NATO. We are talking therefore of discussions between two NATO allies.
The question went on:
But there is a bilateral and profound dispute between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar.
To that the Minister replied:
There is a bilateral difference of opinion, yes certainly.
The questioner went on:
So you're saying there would be—looking at it, at its most severe, no possibility—no capacity for these weapons to shoot down British aircraft for example.
The Minister replied:


I just don't think the question would arise. If I thought the question would arise I wouldn't be here discussing this with a Spanish government.
The questioner asked:
What assurances would there be in this contract, if it were signed, sealed and delivered, that Spain couldn't on-sell the weapons or weapon systems to its trading partners in Latin America, where of course it has a considerable market, Argentina for example?
The Minister replied:
Well I think we would have to ensure in any project of this sort that proper working relationships were established, which would deal with the marketing of the new system.
I have expressed considerable doubts in the House about the problem of end user certificates. I am not trying to create a difficulty. For goodness sake, given the problems of Gibraltar and on-selling — no one can understand better than the Minister how effective Rapiers could be in southern Argentina in certain circumstances where they are passed on—we ought to be clear about these arrangements. I hope that notice will be taken of the United Nations resolution on negotiations that was passed last night.
If the Minister wishes to interrupt me on the subject of Spain, I should feel obliged to give way. There is an issue in the sale of the Rapier, and I take it that the end user certificate point is taken. In the absence of any interruption, I assume that to be the case.
The main purpose of this speech is to draw the House's attention to an aspect of military expenditure that is not subject to parliamentary questions, and can be raised only during general parliamentary discussion of the services—military intelligence.
The time has now come for the establishment of at least a British equivalent of the United States Senate intelligence committee. The proposal is neither way out nor far-fetched. On 19 January 1983, the first report for the 1982–83 Session of the Liaison Committee on the Select Committee system was published. It stated:
One Government activity which already falls within the ambit of the departmental select committees is the work of the security services, and the question of their accountability to Parliament arises from time to time. The arguments against a wide parliamentary discussion of these matters are well known, and have led the committees concerned to refrain from inquiries in this field. On the other hand expenditure of public monies on a large scale should not go wholly unexamined, especially when an examination could be a spur to efficiency. Nor should it be overlooked that the security services, who are frequently criticised in the House, have not in the past had any parliamentary opportunity of putting the record straight. With such a strong case on each side of the question, one thing is clear: the House, having given to the committees a wide and unambiguous duty of overseeing all the functions of the departments, has at present left them in each case to decide for themselves where the balance of the argument lies, and so whether or not to inquire into these matters.
Timing is everything, as we know. This report was published the day after the Franks Committee report on the Falklands, whether by design or coincidence—far be it from me to say. It was swamped, and little has been heard of it since.
Some people might expect me to make an all-out attack on our security services. I shall do nothing of the kind. On the contrary, I believe that the security services have been much maligned and, as the Liaison Committee said, we should have a parliamentary opportunity of putting the record straight. I am fortified in this high opinion of the intelligence services by William Wallace, of Chatham

house, who, in an article in International Affairs in the summer of 1983, entitled "How frank was Franks?", stated:
Yet the Report carries repeated evidence that Britain's intelligence-gathering machinery worked well throughout the years, months and weeks before the invasion, and that accurate assessments of the shifting situation were available to ministers at all times. One must conclude, as Professor Bill Mackenzie concluded of the Plowden Report, that we are faced with a coded document, and that cryptographic skills are needed to read between the lines.
That information is in the Franks report for anyone who bothers to study the text carefully.
Paragraph 153 of the Franks report tells us that, when the Prime Minister saw the telegram from ambassador Williams in Buenos Aires of 3 March, she wrote on it, in her own handwriting:
We must make military contingency plans".
I am told by those who know about these matters that a Prime Minister's note in handwriting on an official dispatch is considered in the Whitehall stratosphere to be a prime ministerial minute.
We are told that, on 8 March, the Prime Minister's private secretary wrote to the FCO—copying his letter to the Ministry of Defence and the Cabinet Office—recording the Prime Minister's comment. Paragraph 153 of the Franks report tells us that on 8 March the Prime Minister also spoke to Mr. Nott, as he then was, and asked how quickly Royal Navy ships could be deployed to the Falkland Islands if required.
It is justified to conclude that all this activity by the Prime Minister would not have taken place if it had not been for the work of the intelligence community and our diplomats. The conclusion is that they did not fail to do their job. Some of the intelligence community are cheesed off with the constant innuendos by their political mistress and others that they had not done their job.
I give a concrete example. The Prime Minister told the House on 26 October 1982 that the crisis had come out of the blue—as she had said to George Gale of the Daily Express on Wednesday 31 March—and that she had had no warning. For greater accuracy, I repeat the exchange. In oral Question No. 1 on 26 October—not an open question—I asked the Prime Minister:
does the Prime Minister mean that she had no warning of invasion before Wednesday 31 March?
The right hon. Lady replied:
I have already made it clear in my speeches during the debate on the Falklands campaign that that was so, so far as the Falkland Islands were concerned."—[Official Report, 26 October 1982; Vol. 29, c. 885.]
I contend that this is an example of the Prime Minister misleading the House of Commons at the expense of the intelligence services. It is untrue, and later it was shown to be true that she had had no warning. I argue that a Select Committee on intelligence should be a forum in which the intelligence services could tell their side of the story. If hon. Members are sceptical that the Prime Minister had warning, they should look at Hansard for 3 April 1982 when Mr. Nott stated:
I suggest that no other country in the world could react so fast".
In this seldom seen passage in Hansard of 3 April 1982, he stated:
the preparations have been in progress for several weeks. We were not unprepared."—[Official Report, 3 April 1982; Vol. 21, c. 667.]


If preparations for the Falklands had been in progress for several weeks, not only is the Prime Minister misleading the House but this suggests that the intelligence services had done their job properly—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): This is a wide debate, but its subject is the Army, and the hon. Member is getting wide of that. It would be difficult for a Minister from the Ministry of Defence to answer the points that the hon. Member is now making.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. With the greatest respect to you, my hon. Friend has raised points about military intelligence for which the Minister of Defence is responsible. These matters are his responsibility

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member were talking about military intelligence, he would be in order, and I would not have stopped him.

Mr. Dalyell: I am talking about military intelligence. I also went to the Public Bill Office and discussed carefully whether my remarks would be in order.
It was not only before the war in the south Atlantic that military intelligence did its job properly. It is clear from a number of sources, including Juan Carlos Murguizur in the May issue of the International Defence Review, that during the conflict on most occasions when Argentine planes took to the air the task force was alerted beforehand. Moreover, military intelligence confirmed very rapidly what Northwood already knew—from the Nimrods with their AD470 Marconi transceiver equipment and from the Americans, whose satellite information was as good in the south Atlantic as it was in relation to the MiG fighters and the Korean airliner—that orders had gone out at 20.07 hours on Saturday 1 May from the operational commander, Rear Admiral Walter Allara, on board the "25th May" confirming that the Argentine surface group should return to Uschaia and confirmed yet again by the naval command in Buenos Aires at 01.19 am on Sunday 2 May. That was also the information of military intelligence.
For at least five hours before she ordered the torpedoing of the Belgrano the Prime Minister knew perfectly well that the vessel's orders were to return to port. Shortly before she awoke at Chequers on Sunday 2 May, the Prime Minister had — from military intelligence and other sources—knowledge of the orders which the intelligence service had intercepted and decoded. The House need not take my word for that, nor the word of Labour Weekly or Tribune. That well known Marxist-Leninist propaganda organ, the Wall Street Journal, referring to the events of 1 May, stated in its issue of 3 October:
Late that same night, Admiral Anaya ordered all Argentinian naval ships to port. On the morning of May 2, Mrs. Thatcher had before her reports of the state of the peace proposals, of the Junta Meeting, and of Admiral Anaya's order.
Like the rest of us, the military intelligence community is human and deeply resents the leader of the country claiming that the Falklands crisis came out of the blue on 31 March—with the implication that the intelligence community had failed to do its job. I have had many approaches from relatives of people involved in the intelligence community, often with serious service connections, who write in this vein:
The son of someone in MI6 told my grandson that she had 3 weeks warning from MI6".

Many service people are beginning to tumble to the extent to which the armed services of this country were "used" by the Prime Minister for her own political ends throughout the Falklands crisis.
If hon. Members do not care for my raising these matters today, they had better apply their minds to the creation of a Select Committee on intelligence.
Is it sensible to cut defence intelligence staff? In The Times, under the byline of Peter Hennessey, we read that Sir Louis Le Bailly, who was director general of intelligence between 1972 and 1975, has spoken out publicly against such cuts. The service was meant to provide practical assessments of what was "on the other side of the hill". It is fair to ask whether there may be an imbalance in British intelligence through over-reliance on Foreign Office political output and too few top people to assess intelligence material coming from the military.
Another matter that a Select Committee on intelligence should examine is the use of intelligence reports in published articles by former stratospherically senior civil servants. In The Economist of 12 November Sir Nicholas Henderson wrote:
We also knew of an Argentine plan for a co-ordinated attack on the task force to be conducted by aircraft from the mainland, from carrier based aircraft, and from surface ships equipped with exocets".
The House should not get me wrong. I am not for prosecuting Sir Nicholas Henderson under the Official Secrets Act, although some people have raised that as a serious question. I am simply saying that a Select Committee on intelligence could lay down guidelines on intelligence reports and Foreign Office telegrams, to which Sir Nicholas refers at least 15 times in 10 pages of The Economist. Before such material is placed in the public desmesne in future, it should be a matter for consideration by hon. Members.
As others wish to participate in the debate, I shall not elaborate on the many other tasks that a Select Committee on intelligence should carry out. For example, Parliament has never formally examined the report of the Security Commission on the Prime case, raising issues about the Government communications headquarters at Cheltenham. Again, I do not criticise the people at GCHQ, Cheltenham. It is remarkable that in a minute or a minute and a half they decoded the Argentine orders. All credit is due to them for that. Nevertheless, when thousands of people work in such a place there should be some scrutiny by Members of Parliament — even if the Select Committee consisted entirely of Privy Councillors, of whom I am not one.
Finally, a Select Committee could also fulfil a watchdog function to ensure that the activities of our intelligence services conform with the principles and practices of a democracy. That is one of the stated reasons why the United States Senate has a defence intelligence committee. I hope that in the coming weeks and months the Ministry of Defence and other Departments concerned will consider that serious proposition. It would be a great help on a number of delicate issues.

Dr. Alan Glyn: I shall be brief. I am sure that the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) will understand if I do not take up the matters that he raised.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces on his first major contribution in the


House following his appointment. I also express gratitude for a similar contribution that he made in my constituency on Monday.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). As another hon. Member said, I also remember his father and grandfather. I am sure that my hon. Friend will make many worthy contributions to our debates, as befits cavalry officers.
Much though I should like to go into issues such as Chieftain and the provision of protective clothing against chemical warfare, I shall refrain from doing so in view of the time.
I pay tribute to the incredible versatility and efficiency that we now have in a fully integrated Army, including not only the Regulars but the Territorials. In relation to paragraph 338 of the 1983 Estimates, as in relation to all the Estimates, I am especially impressed by the extent to which the Government have carried out the actions which they promised. The proposal for the home service force will release more skilled troops to participate in active theatres of war. A previously untapped but highly valuable source will be used—those who have rendered service in the past and who will now be able to continue their service in this new form. That will be of great value in future, especially if we are ever involved in major hostilities.
With regard to paragraph 337, for more than 20 years Members of Parliament have been impressing on Governments the necessity to upgrade the Territorial Army, to give it almost equal status with the Regular Army, and to allow the Territorials to train with the Regulars. I remember the battles that we had to allow the Territorials to train overseas. That is an essential part of their training. Thanks to the Government and to the foresight of Ministers, that battle has now been won. We can now reinforce our NATO forces with a fully trained and integrated Army. Most important, the Territorials are now regarded far more as equals than as junior partners to the Regulars. When they go overseas in time of war, they will feel equal to the Regulars with whom they will have to operate.
Paragraph 336 relates to the Regular Reserve. The Government have finally recognised this important source of manpower, which has been fully trained in the past and requires only a little training to bring it up to today's standards.
Of course, things change. Equipment for the battlefield becomes more complicated. Those who work with tanks must learn how to use the new equipment and technology. Such training will produce a group of people who can use the modern equipment. I am pleased to note that the call-up arrangements for the Territorial and Regular Army have been improved and that the Territorial training will be increased in future.
I believe that Britain has the most efficient and effective professional army in the world. It is versatile and can act in many different capacities.
I wish to paraphrase the important conclusion in paragraph 340 of the defence Estimates — acceptance that the Soviet Union is stirring up trouble throughout the world. NATO members have accepted that Western security is not confined to the boundaries of the treaty area. The most recent example in the world is Grenada. Most people accept that the problem must be solved not within

the confines of NATO, but NATO faces a worldwide defence commitment. If has arisen in the Falklands, Lebanon, Cyprus and Belize.
I was glad that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr McNamara) paid tribute to the British forces in Belize. He has recognised that, without the presence of those forces, Guatemala would probably have taken advantage and invaded. He pointed out that the British force must be replaced by a force from the United Nations. I do not mind if that role is taken on by the United States, but a presence must be retained if the independence of Belize is to be maintained. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), who, like myself, was one of the members of the delegations, pressed Mr. Price to include such a provision in the agreement. The entire delegation realised the importance that a British presence could have in rendering the area stable and enabling Belize to have democratic government.
Paragraph 335 of the defence Estimates deals with the reorganisation of 1(BR) Corps. I hope that that results in a more efficiently organised unit, with less administration and more teeth.
Northern Ireland has been referred to in the debate. All hon. Members recognise and are indebted to the tremendous sacrifices that our troops have made. To fight an army of soldiers is one thing, but it is very difficult to keep one's temper when being fired on by children and people behind windows and when one does not really know where the enemy is. Northern Ireland is probably one of the most crucifying roles that the Army has been called upon to fulfil. It is easy for hon. Members to criticise members of the security forces who fire too early when they are in the hot seat and have no idea of the attacker's position.
I am extremely worried about the orders that will be given to those forces who will defend the cruise missile sites. They must be given concise orders which will have to be thought out carefully. If anything should happen, the Army will be ultimately responsible for the defence of the missiles. If the defences were breached, heaven knows what would happen. I regard the defence of the cruise missiles as being extremely important. I do not know what the Government have in mind to combat the worthy women who think that they are doing a service to democracy, but would be aiding and assisting an enemy in the time of war. A time may come when the demonstrators at Greenham common are no longer demonstrators but the enemies of democracy by frustrating our efforts to utilise those weapons.
I end, as I did 20 years ago, by referring to the lessons learnt from the Hungarian revolution. The lessons that we learnt then apply just as much today. As good as our defences are, I do not believe that they could stop the Warsaw pact countries in a conventional war. There is no doubt that our independent nuclear deterrent has maintained the peace for 40 years. American intervention in 1956 stopped the Russians going over into Austria. I realised from that time onwards that one could never trust the Russians. As they were negotiating in Budapest, I saw their tanks coming from Russia, maintaining radio silence, to descend upon the people and crush them. They carried out the invasion and occupation while they were signing a treaty in Budapest. History may show that that lesson has been repeated.
I am glad that Britain has preserved its independent nuclear deterrent and that the Government have carried out


much of what is contained in the 1983 Estimates. I congratulate them on the way in which they have moulded our reserves and created more reserves sc that Britain can put more troops in the battle line.

Mr. J. D. Concannon: When I entered the Chamber this afternoon, I did not imagine that I would be making what I would term my second maiden speech from the Back Benches. I made my maiden speech in an Army debate in 1966. I think that matters have turned full circle. I would have imagined that more of my hon. Friends would be present to support my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) who made a thoughtful speech and asked some searching questions, but who suffered from the same problem as myself in Northern Ireland. He will have to realise that it is quality, not quantity, that counts.
I wish to pay a special tribute to the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). We first met in Harare—then Salisbury—in Rhodesia, which is now Zimbabwe. That shows how quickly the world has changed. I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's maiden speech and I welcome him to the club, because during the time that I have attended debates on the Army and defence I have found that a better type of Tory attends. I understand older Tory Members better than the new ones who have entered the Chamber of late. I shall look forward to listening lo what the hon. Member for Crawley has to say in future debates.
On occasions hon. Members see the sons of famous fathers and grandfathers — I say this with all the friendliness in the world — entering the House as Members of Parliament and suffering a little because they try to live up to the family image. For what my advice is worth, they must be their own man. They must make their own name and not try to be a duplicate. I shall follow the career of the hon. Member for Crawley very closely indeed. I hope that my advice will be helpful.
The debate is a re-run of previous debates. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) had little to say today that he did not say from the Front Bench four or five years ago. Conservative Back Benchers also made similar speeches in previous debates.
I apologise sincerely to the Minister for not being here for most of his speech. If I strike a few wrong notes, I am sure that he will correct me.
I had the pleasure of listening to the hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck), today. It always brings tears to people's eyes to see their old abodes being pulled down. If he had let me know that the corrective establishment was being pulled down, I might have been allowed to drive the first bulldozer through it. It is always a pleasure to listen to Army debates. Nothing new has happened, and we could reiterate our old speeches.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North on his thoughtful speech. He put searching questions to the Minister and I shall look forward to listening to the answers. As my hon. Friend said, after the first flush of the Falklands has passed, we must ask why, what for, and for how long? We certainly cannot continue with the pretence of Fortress Falklands. Sooner or later international pressure will force us back to the negotiating table.
As I joined the debate I heard the Minister say what a grand opportunity the Falklands were for the Army

because they provide a live training area. My immediate reaction was that we are paying one hell of a price for that training ground.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, searching questions must be asked. Any hon. Member who has served in the House as long as I and my hon. Friend will know of his tenacity, which will win out in the end. We cannot carry on with Fortress Falklands. We must negotiate sooner or later. Britain cannot afford the millions of pounds that the Fortress Falklands policy is costing.
I do not need to say very much about our troops, the security forces and the people of Northern Ireland. Everyone knows how I feel about them and about the task being performed by the Army. I am glad that the policy of ending enrolment for formal tours and troops being put on a long-term footing is bearing fruit. There were many reasons for instigating that policy, including intelligence. It has been a long, hard ride for the troops in Northern Ireland. They have not been fully appreciated by the House or the country.
During the Falklands crisis I asked the House not to forget the fellows in Northern Ireland. The position there and their work might no longer hit the headlines, but the troops have a hard task. All of us have known constituents or members of their families who have been kfiled or maimed in Northern Ireland. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the troops have carried out the instructions of the House. No other army in the world could have carried out their task with such skill. It shows the sheer professionalism of the Army that it can handle the job in the Falklands, carry on with its work in Northern Ireland—which is a completely different task—and help in Beirut.
When I and the hon. Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) were in Belize, it was the first time that a country gaining independence pleaded for us to leave the British troops. In my Army days I left every country backwards in what I stood up in—and no one ever asked me back again. However, I am sure that that was not meant personally.
I hope that the Minister will explain a little more about the role of the 5th Brigade. My experience of reaction forces is that they were purely that—reaction forces. The back-up forces were needed to go in quickly behind them. If we have such a force, we must not use them in other guises in the ordinary infantry role. If they are to be specialists, let us treat them as such. I cannot envisage what role they would play because they need extensive back-up forces. Experience in the second world war with the paratroopers showed that they were left out on a limb. My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North said that had we had such a force when Smith declared UDI in Rhodesia things might have been different. I am afraid that we would have needed a friendly country next to Rhodesia to send in the back-up forces for the paratroopers. We did not have the trained forces to do that.
Many of my constituents feel insecure because of events in the Middle East, the Caribbean and South America, the problems with disarmament talks and the placing of cruise missiles in Britain. The American forces in Britain have made a political gesture, as has the American President. But there is still unease because rumours are spreading rapidly that spares for cruise missiles will be stored on MOD land. This is not the time


to debate cruise missiles, but I wish that the MOD would react more quickly to the rumours. There is an MOD depot at Chilwell in Nottinghamshire, and the front page of the local evening paper claims that it will become a storage area for spare parts for cruise missiles. I hope that that rumour will be denied quickly.
It is a strange sight for me—and one that I find hard to accept — to see British Army personnel and paratroopers parading inside wire fences while people are protesting outside. If there must be such a presence, I would like it to be fulfilled by civil authorities. Having British Army personnel and paratroopers fulfilling that role is the wrong image for Britain. The sooner we get away from it, the better. I do not complain about people demonstrating, because it is their right. We should defend that right as much as possible as long as the protesting remains within the law. Many hon. Members and people outside might not agree with the protesters and how they protest, but, as long as they act lawfully, we should do our utmost to protect their freedom to do so. We fought for that right, and I hope that we would all be prepared to fight for it again if it was threatened. We should keep the armed forces and paratroopers away from protesters and use civil authorities as much as possible.
On a more popular note, and as I have said before, I believe that money is well spent on the Territorial Army. It has been expanding recently. In that regard I should like to utter a word of caution. I get a little hot under the collar when I find that, suddenly out of the blue, the Ministry of Defence starts building in the centre of a town that I represent without writing to say what it is for. I asked the local authority, and it does not know. The building can hardly be a new TAVR training centre as there is still one by the new building. I do not know whether there is any significance in the fact that it is being built next to the Mansfield brewery. If a Department intends to do something in an hon. Member's constituency, it should at least drop him a note explaining what is going on and what the purpose of the building is—not least because local people tend to go to their local Member of Parliament as a source of information.
I should like to pay tribute to some sections that have not been mentioned. I am the president of the Mansfield branch of the Royal British Legion. I pay tribute to it. The War Graves Commission does a fantastic job all round the world. It is deeply appreciated by war widows and by those of us who left friends in far places. The commission commands respect throughout the world.
We have all recently been doing our Remembrance Sunday parades. This year, it struck me that the lads are getting older and weaker. They have been able to carry the injuries that they sustained in their youth for a long time, but they are now finding life more difficult. I have aches and pains all over. I should hardly be able to move were it not for soda baths. As the president of my local branch of the Royal British Legion, I come across an increasing number of people who drop through the social security net. They are now less mobile than they were. I am aware that they receive very fair treatment, but perhaps they could be treated more sympathetically. Perhaps a little blind eye could be employed to help some of my colleagues who have now carried the effects of wounds and diseases for a long time. They find such wounds and diseases more troublesome as they get older.
I said that I would not take long. I did not come prepared to make a speech, but there is a certain freedom in speaking from the Back Benches. I can now say one or two things that I could not say from the Front Bench. I hope that I am back in the defence club. It is nice to see so many of the old faces on the Conservative Benches. I mean that in the nicest possible way. They are the better bunch of the Tory party. I know that to be so, because I have known and worked with them in one capacity or another over the years.

Mr. Michael Mates: It is a real pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon), freed from the shackles of office and shadow office which he has held for so long. If I may presume to speak on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends in thanking him for describing us as the better sort of Tory, may I say without hesitation that for our money he is the best sort of Socialist? [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] The fact that he is sitting on the Opposition Benches all alone except for the Whip on duty is no reflection on the right hon. Gentleman but a rather sad reflection on the party that he is proud to belong to.
I should like to add a few words to the well deserved praise from both sides of the House for the maiden speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). My hon. Friend's speech was well delivered, well thought out, humorous and brief. If he retains those qualities during the rest of his parliamentary life, not many of my colleagues will mind waiting to follow him. I shall take issue with my hon. Friend on one of the points that he made about the British Army of the Rhine, but I will do so later, as it is related to my main argument.
I was gratified to hear the Minister's fulsome praise of the squadron of the Queen's dragoon guards and the job that it is doing in Beirut. I served with that regiment for 30 happy years, and it pleases me to know that it is still doing well.
During the past year I have been lucky enough to see quite a lot of the British Army abroad. I made a brief stop on Ascension Island, on the way to the Falkland Islands, with my colleagues from the Select Committee on Defence. I can only echo what the Minister said about the superb job that is being done there under difficult conditions, and about the tremendous spirit which exists in the Army. In September I saw the 5th brigade deployed in Denmark on an exercise with the NATO Baltic approach force. The 5th brigade, too, was in terrific heart, very pleased with its new role and eager to take part in the combined defence of a crucial but often rather neglected area of NATO's defences.
That was brought home to me again when, with the Select Committee, I visited Turkey and Norway, the only two members of the Alliance that share a border with the Soviet Union. We may think that we are close to where the action might lie on the central front, but it is a different matter to visit a very large but undeveloped country with a real threat from two sides to its own territorial border, and a smaller but equally determined country with a direct border with the Soviet Union. One sees the effect of that not only on the population and on the Government's defence effort, but in the tremendous feeling that everybody is at one in realising what the utter imperatives of defence are.
We have many tasks in the world, and I am sure that the Army will continue to carry them out as successfully as it has in the past. We must not close our minds, however, to the fact that the main task for our Army and our defence forces is the commitment to NATO. The defence of the central front, which is our main NATO concern, is crucial. It is no accident that we have the axis of the most likely advance. It was decided many years ago by NATO commanders that where the full brunt of a possible Soviet advance was likely to come, there the British Army had better be. Maintaining the steadfastness of defence during the past 20 or 25 years, it has always been our pride that we have matched our provision of properly equipped and professionally trained troops to our commitment.
I find it difficult to accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley said about our having too many eggs in the BAOR basket. That is the heart of NATO's defence. We have great problems in priorities, and we must not allow the vulnerable flanks to be under-defended. However, to my mind, it is of paramount importance that we should have a solid and credible deterrent to a conventional advance in the central front.
That brings me to a slight fear that I have, and a slight warning that I should like to share with my colleagues. I hope that it is unnecessary for me to say this, but year after year, as Governments of both parties find themselves in ever increasing economic difficulties, there tends to be a little more yearning to go for the easy option and take a bit away from defence so that other painful decisions can be delayed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer in his statement this afternoon, when he was talking about the savings that he was making and the extra expenditure that there will be on social security and other things, said that these increases in expenditure will be offset by a reduction in planned spending on, among other things, defence. The autumn statement which accompanies that simply refers to the provision for defence, allowing for an annual growth of 3 per cent. in real terms with an addition for Falkland costs.
Not much has been said by Ministers from the Ministry of Defence over the past weeks when people have been leaking talks of cuts in this, that and the other. I have been asked often by journalists and other people what I think is going on. I have said, "If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is keeping quiet about it, then probably all is fairly well". I think one could have guaranteed that he would have been making a certain amount of noise if things had not been going well. That is fine in the short term, but I have heard it said by our Ministers that when we come to the end of the commitment for the 3 per cent. increase to NATO in 1985–86 it must be looked at again, and there can be no justification in our being the only ally to maintain this level of defence spending.
I should be very sad if I thought that that would get public and wide credibility within the Government and the party. I would be even sadder if it was said publicly by any Minister, particularly Treasury Ministers, "We can only do what we can afford to do".
That was the problem that bedevilled the tenure of office of the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) at the Ministry of Defence. For six years the Labour Government made cuts, cuts and cuts again to satisfy other areas where expenditure was to them a greater priority. They were cuts which bore no relation

whatsoever to our commitments. The result was to leave us dangerously badly defended and with armed forces whose morale was dangerously low.
It would be fatal for us to go down that road again. I make no bones about saying that defence is different from all the other commitments that we have as a Government to our country. We can adjust other areas, at some pain, to what we can afford. We have to match our defence needs against what we are threatened with. Any talk about taking away the 3 per cent. increase after 1985–86 would mean that my right hon. Friend and his colleagues in the Ministry of Defence would have to take a look at our defence and defence resources which would make Sir John Nott's defence review look like a cosmetic adjustment. There can be no reason which would allow our Government to do this, because when that review was commissioned, when we first came to power, it made sense to look at future programmes in the light of the increased defence effort for which all the NATO partners had been asked. That involved some pain and unpopularity.
Sir John Nott took some stick for the way that he decided that there must be a reduction in the surface fleet as against an increase in the submarine fleet. That was, nevertheless, a concrete and well-thought-out plan for the future. By "future" I mean the next 10 to 15 years because the decisions that were then taken about the future shape of our forces and future procurement requirements were sensible in that they were part of a coherent plan. One question he considered was what we should do about the British Army of the Rhine and the fact that it took so much of our defence resources to keep it there. He considered the possibility of bringing one division home, but found that there was nowhere to put it without considerable expense; and there were all the training problems which bedevilled even the forces kept in the United Kingdom because of the shortage of trainers. It would have been counter-productive, not cost cutting.
If there were to be any moves towards a radical reduction in defence expenditure, and we have come to the end of what the Ministry of Defence has achieved in its guaranteed time of price stability, all of this would have to go back into the melting pot. I am perfectly certain that the Minister and his colleagues will fight this hard, and I hope that all my hon. Friends on the Back Benches will do the same. If we were suddenly to decide that we had to return to the concept of providing only for the defences that we could afford—because the shoe was pinching elsewhere—because of the fast increase in the cost of the technology that our soldiers, sailors and airmen need to fight efficiently, we would be back to the nonsensical pattern of cutting here, cutting there, and paring this, paring that, and we would end up with the worst of all possible worlds.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates) will not mind if I do not take up his interesting comments about defence expenditure after 1985–86. All Conservative Members and many Opposition Members would be worried if the Government decided to return to the bad old days of paring costs and of not paying proper regard to our defence commitments. I am confident that they will not go down that path.
It is my pleasant duty to say how much I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). He sat through the debate and then, doubtless, thought that a little light refreshment was long overdue and left the Chamber, but I hope that he will read my speech. I welcome him as an hon. Friend and especially as an honourable Sussex friend. His constituency lies close to mine and, like him, I have problems with Gatwick airport and the great pleasure and privilege of representing people who earn their living from rural pursuits. I look forward to our joining forces on many issues of mutual concern.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) raised the question of housing. My hon. Friend, who was previously the Minister for Housing and Construction, took a special active interest in pursuing a great social revolution, that is, the sale of council houses. I hope that he will look keenly at housing for soldiers. The problem is how to get on to the housing ladder. If surplus homes are available, I hope that he will consider the possibility of giving the first opportunity to acquire a home that the Army no longer needs to those soldiers who are leaving the Army.
I listened to the Minister earlier and have little doubt about the truth of the old song that the Army today is all right. As I have not visited Northern Ireland for some years as I used to do regularly, I have not seen as much of the Army as other hon. Members have. However, as a member of NATO's military committee I have met many people from other countries who have seen at first hand the British Army of the Rhine. From their comments and those of my hon. Friends, we can undoubtedly be justifiably confident in the training methods of the Army and the quality, motivation and professionalism of our soldiers.
I am impressed by the Government's resolve to do what they can to ensure that they have the best equipment that Britain can afford. My hon. Friend gave an impressive account today of the replacement of equipment that has become obsolete. The replacement of obsolescent equipment is not an arms race but an investment in security. It is especially important to hear that news when one considers the great improvement in the Soviet army's equipment. I was especially impressed that the Minister singled out the need to put into operation the improvement of our communications through electronic means. The new equipment takes advantage of the electronic technology that has been deployed with much success in the Royal Air Force and the Navy. There is little doubt, as he said, that such is the pace of the modern battle that the ground forces whose communications are the most effective and reliable will have a tremendous advantage. It is all too easy for us to talk about more exotic equipment, such as new types of aircraft, warships or battle tanks, but the improvement in communications in defence is long overdue, and I was gratified to hear what my hon. Friend said.
There is little doubt that during the past decade the gap in the quality of military equipment between the Soviets and Britain has narrowed. I do not wish to be alarmist about it, but I suspect that it has happened not only because the Soviet Union has spent more in modernising its forces — although its financial effort is impressive — but because, despite its comparatively small and uneconomic civil industrial base, it has been surprisingly successful in applying defence technology more cost effectively. My

hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East referred to the huge cost of modern defence technology. It is expensive, but what worries me is that the improvement in Soviet equipment, because of the use of advanced technology, shows that they make their money go much further that we do.
One reason why the Soviets get better value for money is that they do not try to achieve to much sophistication. My fear is that the manufacturers and defence staffs of both Britain and NATO are too often tempted to lay down specifications, the effect of which is to demand even more advanced technology, which blows the defence appropriations sky-high. For many military purposes we do not always need to develop new microprocessors, more miniaturised circuits or faster synthesisers. If we are to keep down costs while taking advantage of what western industry has already achieved, we must concentrate much more on what is already proven.
In the production of more sophisticated civil industrial products the West has succeeded in improving the quality of its modern equipment as well as reducing the cost of much new machinery and products. Computers do more and cost less in relation to their capability. The same is true of a range of goods from motor cars to television sets and washing machines. That production is based on the new technology that has emerged swiftly in this space age, and continues to meet a remarkable range of needs both of industry and the consumer; and it achieves that target at prices that we can afford. I sometimes wish that we could do as well for defence.
I have a special reason for emphasising this point because, as my right hon. Friend knows, I chair a committee of the NATO Assembly dealing with conventional weapons, which is looking at how we can improve conventional defence. We are doing so, as the hon. Member for Woolwich said, because of the increasing concern in NATO circles at the Alliance's reliance on the early first use of tactical or battlefield nuclear weapons. What to do about it was the object of the careful study, referred to by other hon. Members, of the European security studies group, which consists of eminent academics, retired military officers and civilians from NATO countries. It concluded, as my right hon. Friend will be aware, that we could and should use advanced technology for conventional weapons, which could increasingly act as a substitute for battlefield nuclear weapons and do so without breaking the bank. We want to know the extent to which the Government share that conclusion.
After the second world war, for many years we were able to establish and maintain a qualititive lead in conventional weapons that compensated us for our quantitive deficiencies. The challenge today is for our defence establishment to apply economically the technological inventiveness that has proved so cost-effective for the rest of our economy.

Mr. Derek Conway: I am grateful for this opportunity to take part in the Army debate. Although it is a little frustrating, as a new Member, to wait a long time to be called to speak, on this occasion it has been an educational opportunity, particularly because of the speech of my hon. Friend the


Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith), which was most informative. The time that I have spent waiting tonight has been worthwhile.
My constituency has a particular link with the military, not only because it is the county town of Shropshire but also because we have there the headquarters of the western district. I take this opportunity of congratulating General Keatle on his appointment to Sandhurst as he leaves as GOC western district. I hope that he enjoys the tenure of his prestigious new appointment. I welcome to the town of Shrewsbury Major-General Brendan McGuinness who takes over that command. I urge my hon Friend when he winds up to tell me a little about the future of the Light Infantry depot, Sir John Moore barracks. If he is not able to do so today, perhaps he will do so soon.
In the town of Shrewsbury we have a number of Territorial Army units and the Rolls-Royce factory that makes the power pack for the Challenger tank and for the Saxon vehicle and we have the Shrewsbury Electronic Engineers company. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is able to visit my constituency on Wednesday and will visit these factories. We look forward to giving him a warm welcome when he again visits Shrewsbury, the town in which he attended school.
I should like to comment on the Territorial Army and Reservists aspect of the debate. I am privileged to serve as the operations officer of the 5th Light 'Infantry battalion which is a NATO committed battalion and part of the new 49 Brigade. Although election to this place severely restricts my ability to be involved in the Territorial Army as much as I was before, at least during the recess when many hon. Friends and hon. Members were availing themselves of the opportunity to visit Army units, I took part in my annual battle fitness test, which I passed with not quite the ease that I had hoped. I suspect that the longer I spend in this place the more difficult it will be to get through that rather arduous test.
I am constantly impressed with the men, NCOs and officers in the Territorial Army with whom it is my privilege to serve. Their commitment and enthusiasm for training is always apparent to those who have the opportunity to visit their units. Far from it being boring to have visitors from the outside, they welcome it. They do not always go to special lengths, but people take them as they find them. I hope they always find them well.
At the beginning of the Session I was fortunate to be able to visit the NATO school at Oberammergau as part of my Territorial Army commitment. It is an institution not widely known in the House. I urge some hon. Members to take an interest in it because it is carrying out fine work and it would be well worth closer scrutiny.
As we know, half the Territorial Army is committed to NATO and half to home defence. Of course, we have the new infantry brigades, the 15th and the 49th, which along with the 24th regular Brigade form part of 2nd Infantry Division. I served first in 6 Battalion Royal Regiment of Fusiliers, which is now part of 15 Brigade. I am now with 5 Light Infantry which is part of 49 Brigade. My experience is that morale is very high. It has improved because of the extra equipment and better pay and bounty conditions which the Government have introduced. In the several years that I have been associated with those two battalions, I have seen a marked improvement in the enthusiasm which the soldiers give because of this added support from the Government.
I should like to pay particular attention to the Regular service men who are seconded to the Territorial Army. Many who do not know the system do not appreciate how many regular staff are posted to Territorial Army battalions. Although for some of them there is an initial resentment that they have been sent to what they might see as a sort of Dad's Army unit, it is amazing how quickly they come round. Although Territorial Army soldiers obviously do not have the time and sometimes the ability to train to the high standards of regular battalions, the regular service men at least recognise that enthusiasm and commitment can often compensate.
It is very important from the Ministry of Defence point of view that those service men who are seconded to Territorial Army units retain good promotional prospects because that unquestionably spurs on their enthusiasm for training, both as senior permanent staff instructors and permanent staff instructors with battalion units. I am glad that it is not always those who are coming to the end of their careers who are posted to Territorial Army units. I hope that the Government continue that policy to make sure that we get some of the younger and very able career soldiers to help train us.
Of great importance is the kit which the Territorial Army has seen introduced during the lifetime of this Government. I for one was particularly pleased to see Larkspur radios withdrawn and Clansman introduced. The time which was wasted on exercise in trying to establish communications has been reduced remarkably, and training is much more effective now that we have that albeit costly piece of kit. In training terms it has been well worth introducing, particularly as we now have in most NATO battalions six posts of the MILAN anti-tank guided weapons system. I was fortunate enough to be able to attend the Netheravon school when it was being introduced and I helped to introduce it into 6 Battalion the Royal Regiment of Fusiliers when I served with them. That is a very fine piece of equipment.
The fact that the Territorial Army is getting the same sort of kit, albeit not to the same scale at the moment as its regular counterparts in BAOR, along with similar uniforms, pay and conditions of training is very important in removing the two-army concept. I am glad the Government recognise this.
The intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) and the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) commented on biological warfare which we rarely hear about in the unilateralist debate. The unilateralists conveniently forget that, although the Soviet Union has continued to manufacture and stockpile enormous quantities of chemical weapons, this country has not done so since the middle 1950s.
We have heard heart-on-sleeves talk from some Opposition Members about their children and grandchildren, but they should remember that Socialists are not the only people with families. I, too, am concerned about the future of my one and a half year-old son, no less so than are the women who are demonstrating outside Greenham common concerned about their families. However, I urge them to look at the biological capability and record of the Soviet Union. I hope that in commenting on the nuclear biological and chemical aspect of the debate, my hon. Friend will tell us when the next generation of NBC kit is to be introduced, particularly the


new distorted pattern material suits, which will make a big difference to the cumbersome training procedures that we now go through.
Section 337 of the defence Estimates states that the Territorial Army is to be increased during this decade from 72,500 in December 1982 to 86,000 by 1989, which I welcome. I hope that it will be an accelerated programme. I am encouraged to know that SACEUR has appointed an American full colonel as a staff officer responsible for the reserve forces. I hope that that will help to increase the emphasis on and the pressure for a stronger Territorial Army commitment to NATO.
Training exercises overseas have been mentioned. Such an opportunity is as important to those who are Territorial Army soldiers as rates of pay or bounty. Having a good level of training pay and bounty is not as important as the training opportunities for which those men enlist. It is important that we keep the commitment to regular NATO camps in BAOR, and some of the other training opportunities that young officers in the Territorial Army undergo. My younger brother was fortunate to be able to serve for a short while on a transfer with the Regular Army, and during that time trained in Belfast and Berlin. That did him much good. He went back to his Territorial Army unit far better trained, and enjoyed the experience immensely.
I introduce one bleak note to the debate. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will cover it in his reply. It is the problem of DHSS payments, which is causing resentment among those unfortunate enough to be unemployed, who are in the Territorial Army, particularly those in battalions that recruit from areas of high unemployment. Not only are man-training days limited, which in itself can affect many of those men, but many DHSS offices operate different standards in their attitude towards Territorial Army pay, which causes a great deal of consternation. It is one of the more difficult tasks for officers to try to sort out those problems. The Government should urge the DHSS towards more sympathetic resolution of the problem in coming to a good arrangement to help the unemployed serving in the Territorial Army. Their service helps to maintain self-respect and, socially, is a good thing for them to do.
I hope that we shall get a commitment to a continuing programme, so that there is never a need to criticise the Government. Their record on the Territorial Army is excellent. I hope that we shall be able to maintain the man-training days levels, and look forward to the continued expansion of the Territorial Army and to equipment levels and programmes being continued.
Although it will always be true that Territorial Army units cannot be as highly trained as their regular counterparts, particularly over a sustained period of exercise, it always encourages me that the enthusiasm of soldiers in the Territorial Army enables them to win many competitions against their Regular Army counterparts. The performance of Territorial Army soldiers stands critical scrutiny. The commitment of the volunteers and their regular trainers gives scope for greater expansion in the future. I wish my hon. Friend well in continuing that task.

Mr. Neil Thorne: It is a great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) who is a serving Territorial Army soldier. He made some important points. I fully support what he said about the unfairness of the DHSS clawing back every penny from Territorial Army soldiers. Their anger is greater about the bounty than about any other aspect of the clawback, because they would get their DHSS payments anyway. It is entirely wrong because these men and women could receive exactly the same money by sitting quietly at home instead of by going out and practising the art of defending the country. I am sure that most hon. Members will agree with that.
I am sorry in a way that I have had to follow an hon. Friend because I had hoped that there would be rather more competition from the Opposition Benches for time in this debate. However, I must confess that it is always a pleasure to listen to the right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon). I hope that it is not the good common sense that he enunciates so frequently in defence matters that has cast him on to the Opposition Back Benches. It is a regrettable fact that we must now accept that so many people in the Labour party take an entirely contrary view on defence. That could, of course, be the reason why the Labour party lost so heavily at the general election.
The right hon. Gentleman spoke about the commitment of British forces overseas. Recent experiences in Grenada may require the concentration of the Government's mind on our role within the Commonwealth in future. The issue of defence is an important integral part of this exercise. I hope, therefore, that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will have something to tell us about a continuing commitment to our overseas interests. The right hon. Member for Mansfield mentioned Belize and elsewhere and we must be clear about what is intended in these various parts of the world. Cyprus is a case in point where I feel that we did not strike at the appropriate time while the iron was hot. Regardless of which of the parties is to blame, our interests are well established there, and, had a previous Government made clear much earlier what they proposed to do, the problem might never have arisen.
One area that is not given much thought these days are those aspects of the defence budget which include items for education, housing, health and welfare services. I have frequently recommended that these items should not be included as part of the defence budget, thereby artificially inflating it, but should be dealt with separately because they would be required for tax-paying citizens regardless of whether they were serving in the forces. Where someone is carrying out an adequate and important role in commerce or manufacturing industry or in any other walk of life, that cost is not added to the total cost of their service. It is wrong that the armed forces should have to bear that cost rather than it being kept quite separate in the appropriate budget. It should not be charged to the defence of the country.
I know that other hon. Members wish to speak in the debate and therefore I do not wish to detain the House for long but I wish to mention civil defence, a subject close to my heart. I found from my own experience in the Reserve forces that the colleagues with whom I trained were expressing an increasing concern over the civil defence being provided for their families. I hope that my hon. Friend will be kind enough to refer to this matter in


his reply. During the days when we were thinking in terms of conflict, perhaps even nuclear conflict, between East and West, we boasted about how effective the nuclear deterrent had been over the previous 35 years. I go along with that. However, the nuclear club is now expanding and some nations of the world are now becoming much more concerned about what would happen if someone were to join the nuclear club with a rather different attitude to human life.
We have seen how some religious zealots in the Lebanon have been happy in recent weeks to commit suicide in advancement of their cause. One wonders what would happen if others, in positions of great power and with nuclear weapons at their disposal, felt similarly inclined. In such cases we should not be dealing with all-out nuclear conflict — because the smaller countries' resources would not run to that—but we could certainly expect some form of limited nuclear delivery.
We therefore have an obligation to the families of those on whom we rely for our defence, and many of those may be serving at sea or overseas and far away from their families. Our civil defence budget last year, at just over £50 million, was less than half of 1 per cent. of the total defence budget. That is inadequate to provide the necessary reassurance that we should give to the forces of the Crown in the event of them having to engage in a conflict on our behalf. We must now direct our attention to that issue without further delay.
We have in the past been at pains to give credit to those who fought on behalf of Queen and country. Recently we have been commemorating what happened in the south Atlantic. Hon. Members will have seen in The House Magazine this week pictures of an example of the memorials in various parts of the south Atlantic to commemorate those who gave their lives in defence of freedom in the name of the Queen.
It surprises me that we do not appear to have a public memorial in London to commemorate the many lives lost by the Nepalese people in the service of the British Crown during the past 150 years. It is about time that we put that right. There is no doubt that they gave their all for us up to and including the Falklands campaign. In every theatre and every war since our relationship with them first began they have given full and unstinting support. It is a crying shame that we do not have a public memorial in London to commemorate their sacrifice. I urge the Minister to look into that as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The Minister paid tribute to the 300-year history of the Army. My county of Lincolnshire is known principally as the home of the RAF, but as an historian my hon. Friend may know that as long ago as 1685 a certain Sir John Granville formed the first Lincolnshire regiment, and that regiment saw service at the glorious victories of Blenheim, Malplaquet and Oudenarde, and it is interesting to note that even as long ago as that British forces were playing a role in preserving the balance of power in Europe, in that case against the Sun King, nowadays against a Red Czar. That regiment of Sir John Granville's eventually became, by 1881, the Lincolnshire regiment, the famous "Yellow Bellies", and their courage was never in question during the long campaigns from the battle of Omdurman, through the first world war to north Africa in the second world war. With that history, it is not surprising that my constituents

take a fairly robust line on defence. If I may inject a note of political controversy, which has been somewhat lacking in our debate, it is not surprising that by 1979 they were concerned about a situation in which the British Army was overstretched, undermanned and underpaid. It was 10,000 men below strength.
I am not surprised that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) skated over that period in the Army's history. Perhaps he has forgotten an article in The Economist that appeared about that time—at the end of that funding period—which said:
Armies and men with guns; navies and air forces are machines manned by men. This important distinction is part of the reason why Britain's soldiers have become the poor men of Nato.
The article went on to say that our Army
is the most poorly equipped; there is not enough equipment; a lot of it is old; and some essential things are missing altogether".
It is an achievement of this Government that, four and a half years later, not only are we fully manned, but we have some of the best equipment in NATO. My hon. Friend dealt with that aspect in some detail. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) did not give us his views, because he was a member of the Labour party at that time. It is sad, too, that during the whole of our debate there has been no Liberal Member present. It does not say much for the Liberal party's interest in the Army. If we have achieved a great deal since 1979, it is the result of our commitment to a 3 per cent. increase in real terms in defence spending.
I come now to a matter that I want to take up in some detail with my hon. Friend. I hope that he will reply, if not at the end of this debate, then later. An article in The Times of 22 July of this year said:
By next spring the Conservatives will have been in power for 5 years, and on present plans those years will have seen a growth in defence spending in real terms of something like 17·4 per cent., including the Falklands, or 12·5 per cent., excluding the Falklands".
It says that during a period of severe recession that is an achievement. It goes on to say that
those figures … fall short of one of the main aims of present defence policy. That is to achieve an annual rate of growth in real terms of 3 per cent. up to 1985 … excluding spending on the Falklands. To be on target, the growth in non-Falklands spending by next spring would have to be almost 16 per cent., not 12·5 per cent.
That point was taken up in the House of Lords by Lord Carver. He asked the Minister for
an assurance that that commitment"—
a 3 per cent. increase in real terms—
will be implemented; that is, that the provision for 1985–86 will be 21 per cent. higher in real terms than the actual expenditure in 1978–79. Any fiddling with that commitment by readjusting the base from which the 3 per cent. annual increase for the next two years is calculated could mean savage cuts in those years." —[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 October 1983; Vol. 444, c. 184.]
Clearly that is a cause for concern, and I wonder whether my hon. Friend can give me an assurance about it.
The other matter that I want to deal with briefly was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) in his comments on the British Army of the Rhine. When the Minister replies to this debate, I know that he will repeat the very fair comments that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) in the debate on 8 July 1982 that the British Army of the Rhine occupies the heartland of Western Europe, that if we were to reduce the Army it would only give comfort to the Soviet Union, that there is no substitute


for in-place forces, that the Belgians, Canadians and Dutch between them contribute 80,000 men, and—most important—that to remove those men would involve serious infrastructure difficulties. I know all that, but does my hon. Friend nevertheless accept that, in view of our many commitments around the world — in Belize, Cyprus and Hong Kong—our forces are dangerously stretched, and if at the moment there can be no question of reducing that figure below our treaty commitment of 55,000, should we not look at that commitment again for the future? There is no doubt on the Conservative Benches that our forces are dangerously stretched.
I have no doubt that the Army's story in the past four and a half years has been one of the Government's major successes, and I believe that it shows that we have completely fulfilled our pledge to preserve our peace through strength.

Mr. Tony Speller: It is appropriate that I speak at the end of the debate, because I wish to add merely a footnote to a debate on the Army. It refers not to expenditure, weaponry or NATO but to the increased elitism of the Army by unit, which I find alarming.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) spoke as though he were a member of the old Royal Lincolnshire Regiment. Other hon. Members who spoke could have been representatives of the Royal Sussex or other county regiments. We watch with some apprehension as the cult of the specialist name appears to take precedence over the old regimental structure. One of the greatest strengths of the British Army was its county and territorial basis. It is interesting and rather sad to recall that the headlines deal with the excellent people who wear badges or who are known by names such as "para", commando, marine and SAS. During the campaign in the Falklands, no line regiment arrived until the fighting was over. This was noticed by members of the line regiments and, I suspect, it is beginning to have an effect on recruitment.
Those who served, or who have parents who served, in the same regiments over generations feel affiliated to an area and a unit. This seems to have changed. My hon. Friend mentioned the Royal Air Force or the Royal Navy. These are large military bodies. The Minister should inform us whether it is policy to move away from the tradition of equality within specialist roles of the line regiment, commando, "para" and other fighting groups or he should state that while they are in no way second-class citizens the line regiments are now garrison, as opposed to fighting, troops.
If we wear the green and red tie of the old Devons, originally called the North Devonshire Regiment, or if now we wear the tawny and green tie of the Devon and Dorsets, we carry with us part of the history of the 11th Foot and the 39th Foot. These may appear to be affectations, left over from history, but when people see the tie when we canvass or visit they remember the affiliations. This county tradition has been one of the great strengths of the British Army.
I ask the Minister to give, as a footnote to this debate, some thought to whether Her Majesty's Government now tend to say: "That is all right, let them, as the Devon and Dorsets are doing now, spend a two-year tour in Ulster,

but let someone else perform the equally dangerous, but much more glamorous, roles elsewhere." The history of the British Army is the history of the old counties. We, and especially this Government with their philosophy and feeling for tradition, must surely agree that the counties are worth protecting. That is where we shall find our recruits and, should the unthinkable happen, the steadfastness which the thin red line have always typified.

Mr. McNamara: With the leave of the House, Mr. Speaker. The debate has been interesting, ranging from future defence philosophies to the important issues of line regiments and territorial matters.
I have great sympathy with the sadness of the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) about the disappearance of so many of the old county and line regiments. His sadness is shared not only by Tory voters but by many Labour supporters who served, perhaps, in the King's Liverpool or the East Yorkshires and are proud of their regiment's reputation. When those regiments are amalgamated under strange new titles, it is a source of sadness to those people, even though in other ways it is a sign of the progress that has been made.
I should add that anyone who regards the job of the line regiments and garrisons, and indeed any force of the British Army especially in Northern Ireland, as unworthy of special attention and respect is very much mistaken. As we all readily admit, those forces are carrying out a difficult and dangerous job.
We were privileged to hear today the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames). Many hon. Members have referred to his distinguished ancestors. All that I remember, as the hon. Gentleman will not, is a face grinning at me from the Hull Daily Mail many years ago when the hon. Gentleman's distinguished forebear sailed in his youth on a trawler out of Hull. Unfortunately, under the Conservatives we no longer have deep sea trawlers sailing out of Hull, although I do not know whether that is a matter of cause and effect. Nevertheless, the hon. Member for Crawley made a very good contribution to the debate. In many ways, it was a courageous contribution. Given the statement by the Secretary of State at the end of last week in his King's College lecture that there was no doubt about the Government's commitment to having 55,000 troops in BAOR and the Prime Minister's earlier commitment to the same effect, for the hon. Member to cast doubts on the fundamental role of the British Army in Germany in a maiden speech, albeit in the coded messages at which Conservative Members are expert, showed merit and deserves credit. I am sure that we shall all listen with considerable interest to hear what he has to say next, now that he has struck his first blow of rebellion—albeit on an occasion when there will be no Division.
A number of hon. Members suggested that the British Army might be overextended and wondered whether our Rhine commitment, with the other commitments that we have taken on, was putting too much strain on the people and equipment involved. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) also dealt with that. Both sides of the House are properly concerned about the tasks that we demand of our forces and whether we are entitled to expect so much of them. It is interesting that on this occasion the Army itself is not complaining. Clearly the forces welcome the opportunity that these


commitments provide for them to further their claims for better equipment, and so on. Nevertheless, it is a real problem.
We must consider seriously the extent to which we can take on further responsibilities and whether the idea of the 5th brigade is really such a good one. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) said, having established it as a fighting unit we must be concerned about whether we shall be able to reinforce it in time and whether there will be areas in which it will have a special and distinct role separate from those of our NATO or other allies.
The hon. and learned Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) had a little fun at the expense of my right hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield. We all graduated in different ways. My right hon. Friend came from a distinguished academy for many leading Labour party politicians. Indeed, the father of the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), the former SDP leader, graduated in exactly the same way. There is nothing wrong with that. The only regret is that a little plaque will not be erected at Colchester saying something like "Between 1949–51 the Right Hon. J. D. Concannon lived here". Perhaps all hon. Members can look forward to that in the future.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) raised an issue of concern to Opposition Members: the involvement of the Rhine Army—and indeed the entire NATO commitment — in a too-early reliance upon nuclear weapons. The hon. Gentleman explained his fears in some detail and welcomed the various measures which have been taken. The issue appears to be exercising the minds of the generals and senior officers more than the politicians who regard the possession of a nuclear deterrent as something of a status symbol, and are afraid to think in the same way as General Rogers. Equally, they are afraid to think of what that might mean in further use of national resources to meet such an aim.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) asked what had happened to the Government's commitment to NATO, the amount of money involved, the undertakings which have been given and what has been the effect of the cuts. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will answer these points when he replies.
Whether we think that our commitment to NATO, the amount of money that we spend or even our priorities are right or wrong, we should know from what base we operate. We do not want the figures to be massaged for propaganda purposes. The Army will know if the figures are incorrect.
Although I did not agree with all of the strictures of the hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway), he was right to raise the role of the Territorial Army in our defence system, both in its commitment to the British Army of the Rhine and to our home defences. I urge hon. Members to think carefully about what has been said in the debate and not to get carried away with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes) and the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) about the sudden insistence and pressure that we should become involved in some form of chemical or biological warfare. I am sure that they did not wish to give such an impression to the House.
We should certainly be aware of the Russian threat, but we would be foolish if we were to respond automatically by developing the same frightening means of warfare. We

must not follow that path simply because the Russians are proceeding in that manner. Such a decision would have to be taken with great care. I would not take that decision, and I hope that my party would not support such a decision. To take such a decision as an automatic reflex would be wrong. We are right to concentrate on ensuring that those weapons have the least effect on our Army personnel, rather than considering developing them ourselves.
It has been an interesting debate. There has not been the great push to speak from either side of the House that we remember from the past. Conservative Members have chided the Opposition about the few Members who have spoken. I did not take all the time to which I was entitled which allowed an additional three Conservative Members to speak.
It is important to understand the change in both parties. When I was first elected I faced the serried ranks of the major-generals, the rear-admirals and the brigadiers. Conservative Members had all sorts of titles. Some of them had been former regular officers who had earned their titles with great distinction during the last war. It is a compliment to the Army that for 40 years Britain has maintained a degree of peace in Europe. Behind me I have the ranks of Lieutenant Colonel Healeys, Lieutenant Callaghans and Privates Concannons. It is a welcome sign that the pressures are no longer with us.
The care and attention paid to the debate today shows how important we regard the essential role that the Army plays in defending not only our liberties but those of the western world.

The Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. John Lee): I wish to begin these closing remarks by saying that I am honoured to have an opportunity, within a month of my appointment, to take part in such a debate. Notwithstanding the concentrated briefing I have had, I am conscious that I belong to a party in this House consisting of 396 military experts and me. I also wish to pay tribute to the excellent work done by my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, North (Mr. Stewart), who, after 10 months as a poacher at the MOD, has returned to being a gamekeeper at Treasury. I wish him well.
It is a pleasure to make my maiden speech in such an obviously non-partisan atmosphere, surrounded, to use the phrase of my hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East (Mr. Mates), by the best sort of Tories and Socialists.
I shall deal in a moment with most of the points that have been raised during this interesting debate. It has ranged widely and touched on many detailed and strategic questions. I intend primarily to concentrate my responses on the main subject, the British Army. I think that if I sketch briefly the scope of deployments that the Army currently undertakes, many of which my hon. Friend the Minister dwelt on earlier, it will help to put my remarks in context. It will perhaps also serve to point out that it is not surprising that so wide ranging a force, both in capabilities and geographical spread, should create a number of issues and problems. We are not complacent. The Army is not perfect, but it is in excellent shape with first-class equipment, and we are making every effort to make it better.
There are presently some 160,000 men and women in the Regular Army, about 55,000 of whom are in Germany.


In addition, there are about 140,000 regular reservists—more than 70,000 in the Territorial Army and 6,500 in the Ulster Defence Regiment. Next week I am looking forward to spending three days with BAOR in Germany. We have a very substantial Army presence elsewhere in Europe—for example, in Berlin, Gibraltar and Cyprus. Further afield, my hon. Friend has described the Army's achievements and presence in the Falklands and in Lebanon. The Army is also in Belize, in Hong Kong—where I visited Gurkhas on the border in a private capacity in September—in Brunei, in Sinai and at the training unit at Suffield in Canada. The Army also provides a significant number of defence and military attaches to our embassies around the world, and has personnel on loan service in virtually all parts of the globe.
Providing equipment, training, transport, housing, medical and recreational facilities and all the other support necessary to a force in so many dispositions and in so many different roles is a mammoth logistical problem. I hope that hon. Members will agree that our defence organisation has proved, and is proving itself, more than equal to it.
I come to the points raised by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) in his two speeches. They were honest, sincere and enjoyable speeches.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned expenditure on defence and referred to the statement that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman talked about cuts. I should like to make it absolutely clear that next year's defence budget is substantially higher in cash and real terms than this year's. I accept that the increase is slightly smaller than was previously planned. However, the issue is not one of cuts but how best to spend the increase. The cash provision for defence for 1984–85 is just above £17 billion. After allowing for a 3 per cent. public sector pay factor and 5 per cent. non-pay inflation, that represents a real increase of approximately 3·5 per cent.
The hon. Gentleman also dealt with the cost of the Falklands garrison. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, he misunderstood to some extent. The £684 million for 1984–85 includes capital and current expenditure. The former is made up of replacements for losses, and the new airfield and associated facilities. The figure for 1985–86 drops to £552 million and after that the cost will decline progressively as the capital expenditure element runs out. That should leave just running costs, which we expect to be about £200 million per annum.

Mr. McNamara: That is too much.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Gentleman also asked about NBC suits in BAOR. My information is that they are deployed at a scale of two per man. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Conway) asked about the next generation of anti chemical warfare suits. I shall look into that and write to him.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North mentioned the profile of the home service force. It is impossible for me to provide today details about the age structure of that force. I noted his request and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces will write to him. Chemical warfare was raised many times during the debate, first by my hon. Friend the

Member for South Ribble (Mr. Atkins) in an intervention and then by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Drake (Miss Fookes).
I should like to make it clear that the United Kingdom has had no chemical weapons for many years. We have no plans to reacquire them. With our allies, we are committed to achieving a verifiable, comprehensive ban on chemical weapons. We take an active role in negotiation on such a ban in the Committee on Disarmament in Geneva. In March, we put forward proposals concerned with achieving effective verification—a vital issue in arms control negotiations.
The Alliance is, of course, concerned about the threat posed by the massive Soviet stocks of such weapons. NATO has no stocks of chemical weapons, although the United States has a limited national retaliatory capability. The United States Administration's plans to modernise its aging stocks must be seen against the Soviet threat. So far, the Soviets have not shown themselves to be able to negotiate seriously in the Committee on Disarmament, but we hope for a positive response to the range of Western proposals at the next session, which starts in January.
The hon. Members for Kingston upon Hull, North and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Brown) mentioned Belize. We maintain a garrison of about 1,500 service men there to assist with defence against external aggression. The garrison includes an infantry battalion, Harriers and Rapier missiles. The garrison will remain for an appropriate period to perform its task. Meanwhile, we continue to train and equip the expanding defence force of Belize, which already has troops deployed in operational locations.
Several hon. Members queried the role of 5 Airborne Brigade, so designated by my hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier this week. The right hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Concannon) and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North both referred to 5 Airborne Brigade and the possibility of logistical support. We demonstrated during the Falklands campaign that we have the capacity to provide logistical support at an extremely long range.

Mr. McNamara: It is not normally my habit to intervene when a Minister is replying to a debate, but our point was that, although the logistical support in the Falklands was provided over great distances, it was put together over a long time and after very careful planning. I understand, however, that 5 Airborne Brigade is intended to react almost at a moment's notice to a specific problem. We are concerned—whether or not we consider it a good idea—about the degree to which support can be provided at short notice.

Mr. Lee: That is a very fair question. My understanding is that certain logistical groupings are already attached to 5 Airborne Brigade.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Mr. Soames) made an excellent and confident maiden speech. The whole House would agree that it followed in the tradition that we have come to expect from my hon. Friend's family. I can pay him no higher tribute than that. He referred to British Caledonian—that great example of private enterprise in his constituency. He talked about the Crawley industrial estate. My hon. Friend and I share a common interest in that both our constituencies include a substantial Asian population.
On the subject of defence, my hon. Friend made a valid point about the relationship between de fence and foreign policy. He also raised an independent query about the role of our forces in Germany, and asked whether there were too many British eggs in the German basket.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North referred to Belize. He also spoke in support of our troops in Northern Ireland, as did the right hon. Member for Mansfield. I have not yet spent as much time on the sixth floor of the Ministry of Defence as the hon. Gentleman, but I am finding it a very enjoyable experience. The hon. Gentleman referred, too, to the tremendous value for money represented by our investment in the Territorial Army. I am sure that all TA units will be grateful for his comments.
Several Members have referred to the high costs of BAOR. We are doing a great deal to reduce those costs. Since 1979, the number of civilians employed in support of the British forces in Germany has been reduced by 13 per cent., and further reductions are planned. The reorganisation of 1(BR) Corps has resulted in reductions in military manpower in headquarters and support posts. The British force in Germany is a highly cost-effective organisation and we intend that it should remain so.
Some hon. Members have suggested that we should withdraw units to the United Kingdom. It would make no military sense to rely to a greater extent than at present on reinforcements from the United Kingdom to bring 1(BR) Corps up to wartime strength. The withdrawal of units from BAOR to the United Kingdom would be politically damaging to the Alliance and weaken deterrence by sending the wrong signal to the Soviet Union.
In the short term, withdrawing units to the United Kingdom would be more costly than keeping them in BAOR because extra barracks, married quarters and support facilities would have to be built to accommodate them. Even in the longer term, the savings that would result in relocating units from Germany to the United Kingdom would be quite modest. The extra cost of stationing our forces in Germany rather than the United Kingdom is some £225 million per annum.
The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, North said that certain projects conceived by himself or by the Labour Administration are now coming into service. Without wishing to be excessively partisan, I make the point that there is an element of doubt as to whether, had the Labour party been in power, the resources would have been made available for that equipment to come into service and for those projects to be carried through.
My hon. Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck) mentioned our presence in Beirut. Our forces in the Lebanon are part of the multinational force and are present to assist the Lebanese Government and armed forces in the Beirut area. Our presence is an important sign of international support for the Lebanese Government and is intended to help bring about a peaceful settlement in the Lebanon. Our men mount patrols throughout Beirut and have made a valuable contribution towards restoring stability in the city. In addition, we have provided a presence at the meetings of the ceasefire security committee. As a number of hon. Members have said, our men have found that they are welcomed warmly not just by the Lebanese Government but by all the people in Beirut.
My hon. Friend asked specifically about the number of men employed in our force in Beirut. I understand that we

have 115 men there. He also mentioned the valid point about the threat and danger facing them. Defence Ministers are anxious about those possible dangers and threats and we are doing everything to protect the men. General Sir Frank Kitson has been to Beirut and all his recommendations have been implemented.
My hon. Friend mentioned the Buccaneer force based in Cyprus. For obvious reasons, one cannot comment upon the options available to the aircraft, but hon. Members may wish to know that reports have been coming in during the late afternoon of a French attack on the Shia militia near Baalbeck. I understand that the action was intended to forestall fresh terrorist attacks against French elements of the multinational force. Each member of the multinational force has to decide what measure is necessary to ensure its self defence.
The House will agree that it is important to continue working towards conciliation — building upon the progress made in the initial round of the national reconciliation talks in Geneva.
The hon. Member for Woolwich (Mr. Cartwright) made a number of points, but talked specifically about ammunition stock levels and housing. On the ammunition stock levels, my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces said in his opening remarks that we attach great importance to increasing the sustainability of 1(BR) Corps. A central plan of the 1981 defence review was to improve our stocks of conventional ammunition for artillery and tanks, and missiles for Milan, Swingfire, Blowpipe and Rapier, but in most cases we do not confirm the levels of NATO stocks.
Other hon. Members raised a variety of points. The hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), if I may say it in the nicest way, continued with his Falklands theme and intelligence questions. I hope that he will understand if I do not attempt to answer or follow him this evening.

Mr. Dalyell: I appreciate that the Minister is making a genuine attempt to answer the debate. The Opposition give him credit for that, because it happens too infrequently. He is giving his mind to points mentioned by hon. Members. I happen to understand why he is reluctant to answer my questions. Will the Secretary of State for Defence give a considered response, not necessarily to me, but to the recommendations of the Liaison Committee set up by the House, which gave its mind to whether there should be a Select Committee on intelligence, and whether it should be made up of Privy Councillors? If that is considered undesirable, in what other way should intelligence matters be subject to scrutiny by the House of Commons, as was recommended not by me, but by the Liaison Committee? Will the Secretary of State for Defence give his considered opinion on that?

Mr. Lee: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State heard the hon. Gentleman's comments and, with respect, he may or may not decide to respond to them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Windsor and Maidenhead (Dr. Glyn) paid tribute to our troops in Northern Ireland and to what the Government have been doing for our Reserve forces. I thank him for that. The right hon. Member for Mansfield, to whom I have referred on several occasions because we hold him in high regard, raised two matters that had not been mentioned: the work of the War Graves Commission and the work of the British


Legion. Those of us who, like me, took part in our local Legion remembrance parade on Sunday will share his sentiments and views.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hampshire, East gave support to Sir John Nott's defence review. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) raised the matter of surplus married quarters. We shall write to him and answer his questions. My hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham mentioned chemical clothing stocks and the next generation of them, and raised the question of the Light Infantry barracks at Shrewsbury. We shall write to him about that and the matters he raised about DHSS deductions from Territorial Army pay. That caused hon. Members on both sides of the House considerable anxiety.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Thorne) raised the question of civil defence, and specifically asked why there was no memorial to the Gurkhas in London. The Minister will examine that matter and write to him about it personally.
The last speech from the Back Benches was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). He talked about the disappearance of certain county and line regiments and many colleagues supported him on that matter. He specifically raised the question of regimental ties. As I represent a textile constituency, I support anything that will increase the production and sales of ties.
Several hon. Members referred to their visit to the exercise Eternal Triangle. When speaking earlier about the new deployment of 6 Brigade as 6 Airmobile Brigade my hon. Friend the Minister of State referred briefly to exercise Lionheart 1984. By the time the Army debate of 1984 comes round this may well be over. I should, therefore, say just a few words about this important exercise. Planning is already under way for the exercise, which will take place in September next year. It is intended to give practice in mobilisation procedures and to culminate in a major field training exercise in Germany.
About 50,000 men and women of the Regular and Reserve forces will move to the continent. That is significantly more than the 30,000 deployed in exercise Crusader 1980. Many of them will be from the Territorial Army, but for the first time, it is planned to seek the voluntary participation of up to 4,500 Regular reservists. We shall request the co-operation of employers over the release of their staff who volunteer for the exercise.
Lionheart will be associated with the annual series of major NATO autumn exercises, and troops from several allied nations will be joining our field training exercises. Lionheart will provide a valuable opportunity to assess progress on the many developments in organisation made since exercise Crusader. As before, the reinforcements will travel to Germany by commercial ferries and aircraft as well as by military transport, and will join British forces already in Germany for field training exercises.
Lionheart will be our largest reinforcement exercise ever, and will demonstrate our ability to reinforce our troops in Europe quickly and in strength, and thereby illustrate our commitment to NATO's forward defence and deterrent policy generally. We intend to make an appropriate notification under the CSCE final act and

invite observers from CSCE participating countries. We intend to place a report on the exercise in the Library in due course.
My responsibilities in defence mainly concern the procurement of equipment. My hon. Friend the Minister of State described earlier most of the key improvements that are being made in equipping BAOR, and I will not repeat those now. But to arrive at those improvements is a long—sometimes, in the past, too long—arduous and expensive process. It starts with an assessment of threat and identification of a general requirement. Too often criticism of equipment plans is, I am afraid, ill-informed, and ignores the real complexity of translating an idea into reality. While we would like to buy more off the shelf and have made moves in this direction, which I will mention in a moment, in practice much of the equipment the Army will need does not exist until we set about creating it.
I hope that hon. Members will bear with me if I briefly explain the process. They should also remember that it is not necessarily a rigid scheme and does not necessarily apply to all equipment. Furthermore, it was demonstrated last year during the Falklands campaign that the system is flexible enough to be speeded up in an emergency with remarkable and successful results.
A typical land systems project will start in the Army department with a staff target reflecting a special military need and usually expressed in fairly general terms. For major projects the staff target will normally be considered, amended and endorsed by the operational requirements committee, which keeps under review the pattern of long-term military equipment and weapon requirements, against the background of current defence policy and long-term strategic studies. This endorsement will lead to feasibility studies. Following those studies, a staff requirement going into rather more detail will be raised and approval sought of project definition, which normally involves the first large commitment of funds. Projects estimated to cost £50 million or more to develop will also require at this stage the approval of the defence equipment policy committee, which takes account of the entire development programme, including industrial capacity and technological base considerations.
On successful completion of the project definition, approval to enter full development will be sought; in the case of major projects, again from the operational requirements committee and defence equipment policy committee and from Ministers. This is a critical point in a project. An acceptable means of meeting the operational requirement has been agreed, a development programme has been planned and costed, and a reasonable estimate can be made of the ultimate production cost. When a project enters full development, a firm commitment is made to devote to it substantial industrial resources. Development then moves into production, often with some overlap, leading to the final entry into service of the complete equipment. After that the process continues with modification and updating to meet the changing threat and circumstances of the time.
This year we plan to spend more than £7 billion overall on equipment. That is about 46 per cent. of the total defence budget. Ten years ago we were spending only 34 per cent. of the budget on equipment, so that is a significant change. It is not achieved by allowing conditions of service, pay and allowances to deteriorate. As the House knows, the Government have restored service pay to its proper level and are committed to


keeping it there. We are currently about half-way through the cycle to determine forces' pay levels. We have been providing evidence to the Armed Forces Pay Review Body which is to visit the Falklands at the end of this month as part of its inquiry, and it is expected that its report will be forwarded to the Prime Minister in the usual time scale.
Of the £7 billion, about £1·7 billion will be spent on the Army. This is less than the other two services because, relatively speaking, the Army is still a manpower-intensive service and many items of its equipment are simpler and less expensive. But it is evident, even to a newcomer, that this pattern is bound to see some change.
It is an honour for me to wind up this debate on the Army. The Government have made clear their overriding determination and responsibility to provide the will and the resources to defend our country and its freedoms, not only in words but in deeds.
Today's financial statement has announced a cash provision for defence for 1984–85 of just over £17 billion, an increase of £1·3 billion over 1983–84, about 3·5 per cent. in real terms. Real growth since 1978–79 will be nearly 21 per cent. including Falklands expenditure. At the end of the day our equipment and weaponry can only be as good as the men and women in the forces themselves. This House has repeatedly paid tribute to the skill, the courage and the commitment of our Army, whether it be in the Falklands, in Northern Ireland or in the Lebanon. We take pride in them and salute their achievements. Let this House give them the backing that they richly deserve.

It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Prince of Wales Hospital, Tottenham

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

10 pm

Mr. Norman Atkinson: I am sorry that our debate will not assure for the Health Service the money increases about which we have just heard. I am grateful to the House for the opportunity to put this important matter before the Minister, in the hopes that he can reconsider the position. My subject is the closure of the Prince of Wales hospital in Tottenham, London, and the closure of the casualty department there and its removal to the North Middlesex hospital site. I shall make a number of pertinent points about that, and hope that I can persuade the Minister to have a look at them.
The Prince of Wales hospital is a part of the three-site district general hospital, made up of the North Middlesex hospital, the St. Ann's hospital and the Prince of Wales. The General Nursing Council and the University of London medical council and pre-registration committee do not consider such matters on a site basis. They judge all hospitals as self-contained entities and not as though they were annexed departments of a whole district general hospital. The Prince of Wales hospital has always been considered in that light by those professional bodies.
My first protest is about the way that the Prince of Wales has been closed—by a creeping process—that has already been described as closure by stealth. This has gone on for two and a half years. On 6 March 1981 the Minister's predecessor, Dr. Vaughan, who was Minister of Health, came to Tottenham to have a look at the Prince of Wales. He was impressed and said that he felt that there was a need within the NHS for some more hospitals such as the Prince of Wales, which has 204 beds and is a self-contained unit. He also said that the future should lie a little more with such hospitals than with some of the big places that have been commissioned in the past few years.
When Dr. Vaughan arrived at the Prince of Wales hospital, he gave some firm undertakings. He told the administration that in no circumstances must anything be done to the hospital such as the removal of any equipment or the closure of any beds or wards that would pre-empt the ultimate decision when the whole strategy was to be renewed at a future date. When Dr. Vaughan visited the hospital, 166 beds were in operation and there are now between 45 to 75 beds being used. There has been an enormous closure of operative beds. Two medical wards remain, as do two surgical wards, both of which are practically unused because of the ban placed on some comparatively new operating theatres. There are two operating theatres in the Prince of Wales hospital which are almost unused, although they are fairly new. When Dr. Vaughan went there two and a half years ago there were 10 sessions a week; they have been reduced to three. There are four general surgeons in the area, but only one has any desire to use the operating theatre. Therefore, the two surgical wards and the gynaecological wing are almost unused. Nearly all the gynaecological cases have been moved elsewhere.
It is pathetic to look at the hospital as it is being run down. All the clinical technology has been stripped from the place. The pathology and microbiology laboratories have gone and the hospital is trying to survive without them. Emergency admissions to the casualty department


have been reduced to a minimum and that department is about to close. It is operating a five-day week, from 10 am to 5 pm. When the casualty department is moved to the North Middlesex hospital the borough of Haringey will be unique in the country in the sense that it will be a borough with a population of over 200,000 without a casualty department within the local authority boundary. That is a cause for concern. Because of the closure of stealth and because the statements made by Doctor Vaughan have been ignored, I demand an inquiry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but does he not mean the hon. Member for Reading, East (Dr. Vaughan)?

Mr. Atkinson: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That was a slip on my part. I have not seen him for some time, but that is no indication that he is no longer a Member. He is a valuable Member and I pay tribute to the work that he does here. It was unintentional on my part to refer to him in that way. It was because I often do so elsewhere.
My first demand is for an inquiry about what has happened since the undertakings were given.
The second question that must arise is whether the North Middlesex hospital can cope following the closure of the Prince of Wales. General medical opinion is that it will not be able to cope. There is uncertainty about its position. In fact, it behaves as though it is under continual, severe pressure. That pressure is there for all to observe. Not only in the casualty department but in most of the wards it is in a stress condition because of the work it has to undertake, shortage of staff and the way in which it operates.
I have discovered that in 1982 there were no fewer than 1,950 patients transferred from the North Middlesex to St. Ann's hospital because no beds were available. That indicates the pressure under which the hospital operates. General practitioners not only in Tottenham but elsewhere in the area say that they repeatedly have difficulty in finding beds for patients over 65, whatever the nature of the treatment that is required. Hospitals are reluctant to take elderly patients even though they should recover. Doctors find it almost impossible to get places for them in local hospitals and certainly not at the moment in the North Middlesex. Because of the nature of the hospital, the Prince of Wales in 1982, the same comparative period, treated 835 patients aged 65 and over. That is another problem. Once the hospital closes, the question must arise of where the patients will go.
Often, patients are turned away from the casualty department at the North Middlesex. When patients arrive there not only on Saturday nights and at the weekends when the pressures are great, but at other times, there is often an average wait of three to four hours, for any patient. Internal inquiries are taking place on why patients must wait so long at the North Middlesex casualty department without being able to see a doctor or receive treatment. The record is not good.
I do not wish to distress families who have suffered because a member of the family has died prematurely at the hospital. I have no desire to name any patients, but in recent years there have been such cases, some of which I have raised. Three young patients under the age of 15 died unnecessarily in the past two years. Three patients between the ages of 30 and 50 also died unnecessarily.

That is beyond description. Doctors admit that there are unnecessary deaths. The health service Ombudsman condemned the hospital in the case that he investigated. There are many other problems. The doctors remain critical.
There is a lack of confidence in the district. Confidence must be rebuilt. It will not be rebuilt on the basis of the strategy proposed for the Haringey health district, set out in its documents, with the shift of the casualty department from the Prince of Wales and St. Ann's to one site only at the North Middlesex. That change will not restore confidence. There will have to be some serious rethinking.
I share a local suspicion. I received a letter from the Minister today saying that the essence of the strategy was to develop the casualty facilities for accident and emergency on one site only, at the North Middlesex hospital. I suspect that that is a prelude to a gobbling up of capital resources. I suspect that a part rebuild is involved, with new work to be done at the North Middlesex, which will syphon off the resources that are supposed to come in the next three or four years to the St. Anne's development. I hope that the Minister will reassure my constituents that that is not so.
It is alleged that North East Thames is the most expensive health region in the country. The average cost of hospital services per head was alleged to be £190 at the last count in 1982, but the cost in Haringey district health authority was less than £170. Therefore, there is a great difference between what we receive and what is allocated to North East Thames. When the London weighting is deducted from £170, we are receiving less than the national average, yet we have longer waiting lists than anywhere else. The average waiting time in Tottenham for joint replacements, particularly hip replacements, is two and a half to three years. Much elective surgery is done after a long wait, which is longer than in most places. On that basis alone, we have a case for arguing against RAWP.
I see some hon. Members present who represent northeast London. They will know that in Haringey, in 1982, one in 11 people entered hospital for treatment. In Enfield, the figure was one in 17; in Essex and Southend and the various other areas of the north-east Thames region, the figure was one in 18. But in my area, with a hospital admission figure of one in 11 in 1982, which is likely to continue and probably get worse, we have access to fewer beds and it is now proposed to shift more resources out of Tottenham and into lusher territory, into the greener grass of Essex and elsewhere, where the waiting lists are shorter, where there is greater access to beds and where patient ratios are smaller. If anyone can explain the sense of the RAWP argument, I would love to listen to it. I am sure that the Minister will not attempt to do so.
Something is wrong with the strategy on which such decisions are based. We are now asked to reduce our ambition to two acute beds per 1,000 of the population. We are already suffering from a worse bed ratio than most areas even with the pressures of my part of north London. I ask the Minister once again for an inquiry into why a shift of resources is taking place. Why are resources being taken from a place of stress and shortage to be given to those areas which are better off in the sense that their waiting lists are that much shorter? I do not wish to make a political point about this. We are not greedy and we are not asking for more than our share.
All we are asking for is equal treatment. We do not have easy access. We do not have a magical method by which our people can find a teaching bed easily. They cannot. Very often they have a poorer chance of a teaching bed than people coming from outside London. That is not part of the argument. We are not asking for more than we are entitled to—we are asking for the average. We are asking for an improvement and not a closure of beds or hospital facilities. We are asking for betterment for our people, and I think that they are genuinely entitled to it.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. John Patten): The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) has argued his case fairly, basing it very much on local circumstances of which he is well aware and of which I am aware to only a small degree, having once visited the hospital to which we are addressing ourselves tonight in the hon. Gentleman's company.
The decision to agree to Haringey health authority's proposals about this hospital was not an easy one for Ministers to take. We gave it long and careful consideration. I met a delegation front the community health council led by the hon. Gentleman. I should like to commend the community health council for the excellence of the case it put, for the careful way it was prepared and for the balanced way it was presented. It was a model of its type. Subsequent to that meeting, the hon. Gentleman invited me to visit the Prince of Wales hospital in his company, which I did. I should like to thank him and his colleagues for the unfailing courtesy that they showed me when I visited the hospital at a time of considerable local emotion about its future. I remember meeting the people who work in the hospital. I remember a long, lively exchange with the manager of the catering department. I certainly profited from my discussions with patients and also with trade unionists, with whom I spent some time talking.
It was not an easy decision. I can remember my own feelings when a much-loved hospital in my constituency was shut three years ago, ironically enough by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Dr. Vaughan). He did not shut it, but he, along with other Ministers, approved the proposal of the then health authority to permit the hospital to be shut. I understand the feelings of the hon. Gentleman and his constituents.
The decision that has been taken has obviously disappointed local people. I do not seek to deny that. They inevitably see only the closure of a much-loved local hospital with a long and sound tradition of service to the community, but that may turn out to be a mistaken view. Only time will tell whether the recommendation of the health authority and the decision of Ministers turn out to be right. None of us can predict whether our decisions will turn out right; we just try to take them in the best interest of the service as a whole.
It is clear that the pattern of services in the National Health Service must change to meet changing needs. Hospitals are always being built and shut, and that will continue to be the case in the NHS. If I do not, because of time, refer to all the points that the hon. Gentleman raised, I shall write to him as quickly as possible. The background to answering those points is that the services that are now proposed in Haringey will meet local needs better, and I have three grounds for saying that.
The first is that despite what the hon. Gentleman said, we shall have a better concentrated acute service, including accident and emergency, and if I have time I will return later in my speech to the important issue of the accident and emergency service at the North Middlesex.
Secondly, flowing from the decision will come better services for the elderly and others in the area. In the hon. Gentleman's constituency, as in mine, the elderly have not always had their fair share of resources from the NHS. It is critically important to ensure that they get a better share of those resources, particularly taking demographic trends into account.
Thirdly, it is important to recognise that, while a hospital is to be closed, there will remain a considerable Health Service facility on the site; there will be the important development of an integrated community heath clinic, which will provide invaluable health care in Prince's part of Tottenham, helping in particular the elderly as well as families with children, be they families of the husband—wife—children model or single-parent families, who I know are a considerable problem in the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
I must deal first with what the then Minister for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East said—or did not say — in 1981. It is not for me to defend anything that any hon. Member says in this House, particularly when he is not present, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will not mind if I try to set the record straight, and in doing so I must comment that I do not think that the Secretary of State would wish to institute any form of inquiry into anything that my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East said two or three years ago, after he visited the hospital.
The hon. Member for Tottenham referred to undertakings given when my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East was Minister for Health. The decision that has been taken does not breach those undertakings in any way. My hon. Friend said in 1981 that he would not agree any further changes in services at the hospital unless they formed part of an overall review and plan that was to be prepared by the new district health authority, which was not at that stage operating.
The proposals from the health authority in Haringey are the result of a review and they form a coherent overall strategy, even if the hon. Gentleman does not, for reasons that I understand all too well, approve of that strategy. I do not think that anything my hon. Friend the then Minister for Health said, in letters or statements issued after his visit, can be seen or be taken as constituting a binding guarantee upon this or any other Government who might have come along at a later stage, about the future of that hospital. It is less than just to the health authorities to suggest that this hospital has been closed by stealth, that it has been run down. That is not true. The future of the Prince of Wales hospital has been reviewed on the context of the other two major acute hospitals in the area. The district health authority had to make a series of difficult decisions, because it became clear that patient demand did not support the need for a split site district general hospital, on three separate sites.
I accept what the hon. Gentleman says about split site district general hospitals as one unit. I was therefore surprised when he quoted against the North Middlesex hospital the fact that a number of its patients had been transferred to other component parts of the health system—the other two hospitals in the area. Such transfers


between hospitals are common when there is a split site district general hospital. The critical decision for the health authority was to choose the sites on which to develop the two main component hospitals. The North Middlesex chooses itself. That is clear. It contains major new facilities, and it has room for expansion. The choice between the Prince of Wales hospital and St. Ann's is much harder. I would be the first to agree with what I think is the hon. Gentleman's view, that the Prince is geographically better sited. However, I cannot agree that the Prince is therefore a better site for development, because it is cramped. I have visited the site myself. There simply is not room for the expansion of the existing hospital into a large modern component part of a split site district general hospital. Unfortunately, St. Ann's has the overriding merit of room to expand.
It is important to realise, in the interests of the local community, the importance that Ministers attach to the development of an integrated health care facility on the site of the Prince of Wales and the savings that will be made. They will amount to £2·6 million. Added to that is about £400,000 a year from Wood Green and Southgate, which is to be converted into a facility for mental handicap patients. Of that £3 million global sum, about £1 million will go to meet the district's revised budget, in line with its need to redistribute some of its resources to other parts of the North-East Thames region. The hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he does not agree with that policy. He made some detailed and interesting points about the

regional allocation working party scheme. Unfortunately, we do not have time to debate that aspect tonight, but I shall reply to him fully on the matter. Two million pounds will be used for priority services developments, mainly for the elderly. It is important to realise that the elderly will be the direct beneficiaries of this distribution of resources.
I know the depth of the hon. Gentleman's feelings about this hospital. I know that he and some of his constituents do not like the idea of having to travel as far as the North Middlesex hospital, particularly to the accident and emergency services there. Nevertheless, I ask him to be cautious—as he sought to be in his speech—before shedding any unfortunate light on the facilities that are available at the North Middlesex. After all, considerable capital investment will be made there, as will also happen at the St. Ann's site. It should be remembered that vigorous action has been taken to put matters right at the accident and emergency services there, including the appointment of a new full-time consultant. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and his constituents about the accident and emergency care that they will get.
I am sorry that I cannot oblige the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in the community health council. The decision has been taken — we believe, in the best interests of the patients—and we look forward to the orderly transfer of the hospital over the next four or five years to the new sites and the development of the splendid new integrated health facilities that will rise up on the site.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes past Ten o' clock.